7 ms·

Progressives seem to have lost all understanding of the concept of money. It is a means of trade. The spending power of the basic income will ultimately refle

Progressives seem to have lost all understanding of the concept of money. It is a means of trade. The spending power of the basic income will ultimately reflect the value its recipients produced in order to obtain it - zero in this case.

nabla9 13y ago
Progressives? Did you know that Friedrich Hayek and Milton Friedman supported the idea?
- clarky07 13y ago
  Friedman supported a negative income tax. While somewhat similar, it is not the same thing.
  - nabla9 13y ago
    Negative income tax is one way to implement basic income. There are others.
tokenizer 13y ago
> The spending power of the basic income will ultimately reflect the value its recipients produced in order to obtain it - zero in this case. What do you think the purchasing power of welfare money is? Furthermore, can you really separate the purchasing power of the money utilized in the minimum income and the income from working?
- downandout 13y ago
  I am not separating anything. I am saying that inflation will rise, because that's what happens when a country isn't producing anything more, but the country increases the amount of its currency in circulation. It's like a stock split - absent a rise in the actual value of the company, doubling the number of shares makes each share half as valuable. In this case, over time inflation will adjust to the point that the spending power of the basic income will approach zero. It won't actually hit zero, because markets are not 100% efficient. But it will be close.
  - brazzy 13y ago
    > over time inflation will adjust to the point that the spending power of the basic income will approach zero. Through what mechanism exactly? Please also explain why this hasn't happened with other, existing forms of social subsidies. It seems like it is your understanding of money that is laughably over-simplified.
    - downandout 13y ago
      They will have to print this money, because there is nowhere else to get it. What happens when you print money but there is no additional demand for it? You guessed it...the value drops. Markets are surprisingly efficient at pricing things like this in. Are you seriously trying to make the argument that their economy will absorb this with no effect on the value of their currency?
      - brazzy 13y ago
        > because there is nowhere else to get it. Why that? Nobody's talking about abolishing taxes. Note also that the basic income would replace many other forms of social subsidies that already exist and have harmful side effects.
        downandout 13y ago
        Why that? Because you can't tax enough to fund a basic income for every single person.
        brazzy 13y ago
        That depends entirely on how high it is, doesn't it? Ultimately, it's not about money but about productivity. If the economy is productive enough to give everyone a minimal standard of living as well as comforts and luxuries for those who earn them, it doesn't really matter how said minimal standard of living is "funded". And there is little doubt that the economies of developed countries are that productive for a reasonable minimal standard.
d4nt 13y ago
We're already giving money to people with no job, this would effectively take money off people who administer welfare systems and give it to low paid workers who would then get benefits and wages.
- driverdan 13y ago
  Not at all. It gives money to everyone regardless of income. Welfare makes up a small percentage of GDP (unless you include all entitlement programs which this wouldn't). A basic income would be a huge percentage of GDP. IIRC in Switzerland's case this is about 25% of GDP. That's a massive increase in government spending.
  - d4nt 13y ago
    You missed my (admittedly subtle) point. Yes, on the face of it, it gives a basic income to everyone. But you haven't magically made more wealth so your average tax payer has to pay somehow. Either through higher taxes, a devalued currency, or fewer schools/hospitals. The people who do stand to benefit are those who would have been earning just enough to stop receiving welfare before. They now get to keep the benefits and the transition up the income scale is smoother. Meanwhile, those people who had a job administering welfare are out of work.
nano_o 13y ago
But, to be pedantic, 1000 times zero is still zero, so you are saying that any income will be worth zero.
- downandout 13y ago
  Yes, that is a pedantic statement :). The number will never actually hit zero, largely because the brief statement I wrote here is a drastic oversimplication of how currencies are valued. But it doesn't change the underlying statement - the basic income will be pretty useless after a relatively short amount of time.
  - nano_o 13y ago
    Not really, if the total amount of money does not change, then the worth of the basic income would not converge to zero. Am I missing something obvious?
summerdown2 13y ago
> he spending power of the basic income will ultimately reflect the value its recipients produced in order to obtain it - zero in this case. I'm always interested in these sorts of arguments and how certain some people are about how it will all end up. Could I ask how you have managed to be so certain about this? Personally, I don't think economics is enough of a settled science to guarantee very much. The real world tests people have done so far have been intriguing, but I think a basic income requires a lot more empirical testing to know for sure.

nabla9 13y ago

Progressives? Did you know that Friedrich Hayek and Milton Friedman supported the idea?

clarky07 13y ago
Friedman supported a negative income tax. While somewhat similar, it is not the same thing.
- nabla9 13y ago
  Negative income tax is one way to implement basic income. There are others.

tokenizer 13y ago

> The spending power of the basic income will ultimately reflect the value its recipients produced in order to obtain it - zero in this case. What do you think the purchasing power of welfare money is? Furthermore, can you really separate the purchasing power of the money utilized in the minimum income and the income from working?

downandout 13y ago
I am not separating anything. I am saying that inflation will rise, because that's what happens when a country isn't producing anything more, but the country increases the amount of its currency in circulation. It's like a stock split - absent a rise in the actual value of the company, doubling the number of shares makes each share half as valuable. In this case, over time inflation will adjust to the point that the spending power of the basic income will approach zero. It won't actually hit zero, because markets are not 100% efficient. But it will be close.
- brazzy 13y ago
  > over time inflation will adjust to the point that the spending power of the basic income will approach zero. Through what mechanism exactly? Please also explain why this hasn't happened with other, existing forms of social subsidies. It seems like it is your understanding of money that is laughably over-simplified.
  - downandout 13y ago
    They will have to print this money, because there is nowhere else to get it. What happens when you print money but there is no additional demand for it? You guessed it...the value drops. Markets are surprisingly efficient at pricing things like this in. Are you seriously trying to make the argument that their economy will absorb this with no effect on the value of their currency?
    - brazzy 13y ago
      > because there is nowhere else to get it. Why that? Nobody's talking about abolishing taxes. Note also that the basic income would replace many other forms of social subsidies that already exist and have harmful side effects.
      - downandout 13y ago
        Why that? Because you can't tax enough to fund a basic income for every single person.
        brazzy 13y ago
        That depends entirely on how high it is, doesn't it? Ultimately, it's not about money but about productivity. If the economy is productive enough to give everyone a minimal standard of living as well as comforts and luxuries for those who earn them, it doesn't really matter how said minimal standard of living is "funded". And there is little doubt that the economies of developed countries are that productive for a reasonable minimal standard.

d4nt 13y ago

We're already giving money to people with no job, this would effectively take money off people who administer welfare systems and give it to low paid workers who would then get benefits and wages.

driverdan 13y ago
Not at all. It gives money to everyone regardless of income. Welfare makes up a small percentage of GDP (unless you include all entitlement programs which this wouldn't). A basic income would be a huge percentage of GDP. IIRC in Switzerland's case this is about 25% of GDP. That's a massive increase in government spending.
- d4nt 13y ago
  You missed my (admittedly subtle) point. Yes, on the face of it, it gives a basic income to everyone. But you haven't magically made more wealth so your average tax payer has to pay somehow. Either through higher taxes, a devalued currency, or fewer schools/hospitals. The people who do stand to benefit are those who would have been earning just enough to stop receiving welfare before. They now get to keep the benefits and the transition up the income scale is smoother. Meanwhile, those people who had a job administering welfare are out of work.

nano_o 13y ago

But, to be pedantic, 1000 times zero is still zero, so you are saying that any income will be worth zero.

downandout 13y ago
Yes, that is a pedantic statement :). The number will never actually hit zero, largely because the brief statement I wrote here is a drastic oversimplication of how currencies are valued. But it doesn't change the underlying statement - the basic income will be pretty useless after a relatively short amount of time.
- nano_o 13y ago
  Not really, if the total amount of money does not change, then the worth of the basic income would not converge to zero. Am I missing something obvious?

summerdown2 13y ago

> he spending power of the basic income will ultimately reflect the value its recipients produced in order to obtain it - zero in this case. I'm always interested in these sorts of arguments and how certain some people are about how it will all end up. Could I ask how you have managed to be so certain about this? Personally, I don't think economics is enough of a settled science to guarantee very much. The real world tests people have done so far have been intriguing, but I think a basic income requires a lot more empirical testing to know for sure.