9 ms·

The problem with the whole premise of this analysis is that libertarianism is some kind of idealistic belief to appeal to the pillars. This is wrong. Libertari

The problem with the whole premise of this analysis is that libertarianism is some kind of idealistic belief to appeal to the pillars. This is wrong. Libertarianism is about pragmatism, and a basic income would simply drive up costs of all basic things needed to survive especially if any of those are scarce. This would likely hurt those just above that poverty barrier the most as they would no longer be able to afford basic shelter even though they are gainfully employed. Because of this, those people will find it better to move out to land no one cares about and just 'do nothing' as decreasing costs is the only way for them to live decently. These people will not provide value to society, resulting in net loss of value (read: happiness, whatever you want to call it) for all.

orblivion 13y ago
> This is wrong. Libertarianism is about pragmatism What libertarianism is about has been a subject of debate between libertarians for decades. There are others who see it as an idealistic belief.
- craigyk 13y ago
  It is an idealistic ethos. In my mind it's as naive as centrally planned socialism, but just at the other end of the spectrum.
  - warfangle 13y ago
    I fail to find ethics in libertarianism. Unless you're talking randian ethics, which are a far cry from ethics themselves.
  - mindcrime 13y ago
    Far from it. Libertarianism is the most realistic and non-naive system around, exactly because it is the one system that does not pretend that we can fix all the flaws in human nature and socially-engineer a perfect society by just passing enough laws and creating enough rules and regulations and bureaucracies. At it's core, libertarianism makes no statement about outcomes, but simply demands that people be free to make their own choices without being subject to force or fraud, and are then responsible for the outcome of their actions. Nobody is making any Pollyanna'ish guarantee that such a system will result in the most possible desirable outcome for everybody involved. The claim is that it's just the right thing to do, that most people will be better off (economically) than under other systems, and that you accept that every system - this one included - has its pathologies. You can't get much less naive than that.
    - craigyk 13y ago
      "The claim is that it's just the right thing to do, that most people will be better off (economically) than under other systems" There it is, that is the idealistic part.
      - mindcrime 13y ago
        Not really. I mean, economics is mostly voodoo science anyway, so it's hard to make a lot of objective statements about any of this, but it's hardly a stretch to suggest that laissez-faire free-market policies are generally better for economic growth. But, again, none of this is really the point. Every system is flawed in its own ways, and the libertarian approach simply acknowledges that, rather than trying to distort reality and pretend that a "perfect" system is even theoretically possible.
craigyk 13y ago
I think you are wrong... but really, you should be advocating that it be tried anyways, because what neither one of us have is a lot of evidence.
jganetsk 13y ago
Your assertion that a basic income would drive up costs is wrong. What evidence do you have of that? If it's done without printing money, it will not cause inflation. There will be more demand for housing, but how much more? The homeless will now be able to get homes. So, how much demand is that? How much will that drive prices up? The great thing about universal income is that people decide how to spend it. And they will not all spend it on "basic items", and they will not all spend it on the same things.
- dragonwriter 13y ago
  > Your assertion that a basic income would drive up costs is wrong. What evidence do you have of that? If it's done without printing money, it will not cause inflation. Redistributing income can be expected to cause market-specific price increases in goods that the people benefiting from the redistribution have a greater propensity to purchase than those from whom income is redistributed. (And decreases in other goods.) Adopting Basic Income is pretty clearly going to affect a redistribution of income. So, the increase in prices for basic goods conclusion is sound (the idea that this will end up harming those just above the poverty line by giving them less purchasing power seems, however, far less sound.)
  - jganetsk 13y ago
    We can't make these conclusions until we precisely know how people will spend the money. It could go into paying off debt and savings. It could go into luxury items (which the poor love to buy). Also, proposals for basic income often involve curtailing other social programs, which would have an impact as well. A basic income could, for instance, supplant food stamps, thus potentially keeping food prices the same.
    - dragonwriter 13y ago
      > We can't make these conclusions until we precisely know how people will spend the money. It could go into paying off debt and savings. Its not like marginal propensity to consume of people in different income levels is a completely opaque mystery about which we have no information.
dragonwriter 13y ago
> basic income would simply drive up costs of all basic things needed to survive especially if any of those are scarce. Sure, you'd expect some price increase -- anytime a group of people get more income, the maket-clearing price of things they have a non-zero propensity to consume can be expected to increase by basic supply-demand analysis. At the same time, except with completely inelastic demand, the increase in price will not be so much that the amount they are able to afford decreases, by the same analysis. > would likely hurt those just above that poverty barrier the most as they would no longer be able to afford basic shelter even though they are gainfully employed. I'd really like to see an argument for this. Since the people "just above the poverty barrier" are going to see the same increase in income as everyone else (basic income goes to everyone in equal amounts -- it isn't a minimum guarantee that is reduced 1:1 with outside income), what is the basis for concluding that the real purchasing power of those just above the poverty line would decline?
- dllthomas 13y ago
  The real purchasing power of those just above the break-even point will decline (as will that of everyone else above the break-even point). If the break-even point is chosen to be the poverty line, then we have pushed everyone toward the poverty line, be it up or down, as a first-order effect of the policy. Second order effects might move things up (increased demand from those below the poverty line leads to increased opportunity to meet that demand and "lifts all boats") or down (inflation makes comparable quality of life less affordable)... The poverty line has been suggested as a break-even point in some BI proposals, but certainly not all.
  - dragonwriter 13y ago
    > The poverty line has been suggested as a break-even point in some BI proposals I haven't seen any proposals that have explicitly targetted a particular break-even point -- most BI proposals I've seen have targetted near-poverty-line levels of BI, which suggests a substantially higher break-even point. (I've seen a few discussions of targetting a no-nominal-income-effect point considering BI and any necessary revenue measures, typically around the median pre-BI income, but that's not exactly the same as targetting a break-even point as you've described it, as break even is no real income effect, after considering inflation effects.)
jasonwatkinspdx 13y ago
You're assuming a basic income requires expanding the monetary base. It doesn't, it could be redistribution as well.

orblivion 13y ago

> This is wrong. Libertarianism is about pragmatism What libertarianism is about has been a subject of debate between libertarians for decades. There are others who see it as an idealistic belief.

craigyk 13y ago
It is an idealistic ethos. In my mind it's as naive as centrally planned socialism, but just at the other end of the spectrum.
- warfangle 13y ago
  I fail to find ethics in libertarianism. Unless you're talking randian ethics, which are a far cry from ethics themselves.
- mindcrime 13y ago
  Far from it. Libertarianism is the most realistic and non-naive system around, exactly because it is the one system that does not pretend that we can fix all the flaws in human nature and socially-engineer a perfect society by just passing enough laws and creating enough rules and regulations and bureaucracies. At it's core, libertarianism makes no statement about outcomes, but simply demands that people be free to make their own choices without being subject to force or fraud, and are then responsible for the outcome of their actions. Nobody is making any Pollyanna'ish guarantee that such a system will result in the most possible desirable outcome for everybody involved. The claim is that it's just the right thing to do, that most people will be better off (economically) than under other systems, and that you accept that every system - this one included - has its pathologies. You can't get much less naive than that.
  - craigyk 13y ago
    "The claim is that it's just the right thing to do, that most people will be better off (economically) than under other systems" There it is, that is the idealistic part.
    - mindcrime 13y ago
      Not really. I mean, economics is mostly voodoo science anyway, so it's hard to make a lot of objective statements about any of this, but it's hardly a stretch to suggest that laissez-faire free-market policies are generally better for economic growth. But, again, none of this is really the point. Every system is flawed in its own ways, and the libertarian approach simply acknowledges that, rather than trying to distort reality and pretend that a "perfect" system is even theoretically possible.

craigyk 13y ago

I think you are wrong... but really, you should be advocating that it be tried anyways, because what neither one of us have is a lot of evidence.

jganetsk 13y ago

Your assertion that a basic income would drive up costs is wrong. What evidence do you have of that? If it's done without printing money, it will not cause inflation. There will be more demand for housing, but how much more? The homeless will now be able to get homes. So, how much demand is that? How much will that drive prices up? The great thing about universal income is that people decide how to spend it. And they will not all spend it on "basic items", and they will not all spend it on the same things.

dragonwriter 13y ago
> Your assertion that a basic income would drive up costs is wrong. What evidence do you have of that? If it's done without printing money, it will not cause inflation. Redistributing income can be expected to cause market-specific price increases in goods that the people benefiting from the redistribution have a greater propensity to purchase than those from whom income is redistributed. (And decreases in other goods.) Adopting Basic Income is pretty clearly going to affect a redistribution of income. So, the increase in prices for basic goods conclusion is sound (the idea that this will end up harming those just above the poverty line by giving them less purchasing power seems, however, far less sound.)
- jganetsk 13y ago
  We can't make these conclusions until we precisely know how people will spend the money. It could go into paying off debt and savings. It could go into luxury items (which the poor love to buy). Also, proposals for basic income often involve curtailing other social programs, which would have an impact as well. A basic income could, for instance, supplant food stamps, thus potentially keeping food prices the same.
  - dragonwriter 13y ago
    > We can't make these conclusions until we precisely know how people will spend the money. It could go into paying off debt and savings. Its not like marginal propensity to consume of people in different income levels is a completely opaque mystery about which we have no information.

dragonwriter 13y ago

> basic income would simply drive up costs of all basic things needed to survive especially if any of those are scarce. Sure, you'd expect some price increase -- anytime a group of people get more income, the maket-clearing price of things they have a non-zero propensity to consume can be expected to increase by basic supply-demand analysis. At the same time, except with completely inelastic demand, the increase in price will not be so much that the amount they are able to afford decreases, by the same analysis. > would likely hurt those just above that poverty barrier the most as they would no longer be able to afford basic shelter even though they are gainfully employed. I'd really like to see an argument for this. Since the people "just above the poverty barrier" are going to see the same increase in income as everyone else (basic income goes to everyone in equal amounts -- it isn't a minimum guarantee that is reduced 1:1 with outside income), what is the basis for concluding that the real purchasing power of those just above the poverty line would decline?

dllthomas 13y ago
The real purchasing power of those just above the break-even point will decline (as will that of everyone else above the break-even point). If the break-even point is chosen to be the poverty line, then we have pushed everyone toward the poverty line, be it up or down, as a first-order effect of the policy. Second order effects might move things up (increased demand from those below the poverty line leads to increased opportunity to meet that demand and "lifts all boats") or down (inflation makes comparable quality of life less affordable)... The poverty line has been suggested as a break-even point in some BI proposals, but certainly not all.
- dragonwriter 13y ago
  > The poverty line has been suggested as a break-even point in some BI proposals I haven't seen any proposals that have explicitly targetted a particular break-even point -- most BI proposals I've seen have targetted near-poverty-line levels of BI, which suggests a substantially higher break-even point. (I've seen a few discussions of targetting a no-nominal-income-effect point considering BI and any necessary revenue measures, typically around the median pre-BI income, but that's not exactly the same as targetting a break-even point as you've described it, as break even is no real income effect, after considering inflation effects.)

jasonwatkinspdx 13y ago

You're assuming a basic income requires expanding the monetary base. It doesn't, it could be redistribution as well.