What's your position on a universal minimum income?

[CultureCitizen]

Well , of course, that's why I used the self driving cars as an example.
The technology exists right now? yes
Is it business ready ? no.
Will it be business ready in ten years? yes.

This means that all those drivers should start trainning for a new job in the next five years, or else be laid off.
The problem is that I don't really see that the conditions are set for people retooling from drivers to healthcare or STEM.

Milton Friedman was a conservative economist by all measures, and yet he advocated for universal basic income. He said such income should never exceed the net minimum wage but should be enough to survive. In that way people would allways strive to get a job.

Now, per my proposal: 5,000 to every adult yields 1.2 T ( the reason to make it per adult and not per person is to avoid using kids as a source of income) currently the budget is 3.8 T, so yes this would need some sort of tax reform before before being enacted, or maybe in ten years 1.2T that amount will not be such a big percent of gdp as it is right now.

Self-driving cars are hazardous.

Everyplace where self-driving cars have been tried they have been banned.

Think about factory robots instead.

They don't make mistakes.

They don't belong to unions.

They just cannot think.

Although factory workers don't think much anyway either.

I did said clearly they were not business ready ( the driving cars), as robots, yes, indeed they have been increasing their numbers steadily , but by extrapolating their growth , I estimate it will take another decade before the real job shredding starts : 2035, give or take a couple of years.
So I say it is time to look at the posible consequences before another unemployment crisis hits us.

 

[Boss]

I did said clearly they were not business ready ( the driving cars), as robots, yes, indeed they have been increasing their numbers steadily , but by extrapolating their growth , I estimate it will take another decade before the real job shredding starts : 2035, give or take a couple of years.
So I say it is time to look at the posible consequences before another unemployment crisis hits us.

*sigh* It's NOT going to be a crisis.

I imagine, once was a time, a mother had to break the news to her little son that he couldn't grow up to be a stagecoach driver like his father because people weren't using stagecoaches anymore. I'm sure his heart was broken over this but he went on to become something else. The same will happen with Uber drivers! Sorry, little Timmy, you can't be a Uber driver like Daddy when you grow up because there won't be any!

 

[CultureCitizen]

No new technology changes the employment landscape overnight. Just because a new tech is available doesn't mean business is ready to make the switch. It usually takes a decade or more for most major innovations to catch on. In the meantime, it is more a gradual change happening over time.

Well , of course, that's why I used the self driving cars as an example.
The technology exists right now? yes
Is it business ready ? no.
Will it be business ready in ten years? yes.

This means that all those drivers should start trainning for a new job in the next five years, or else be laid off.
The problem is that I don't really see that the conditions are set for people retooling from drivers to healthcare or STEM.

Milton Friedman was a conservative economist by all measures, and yet he advocated for universal basic income. He said such income should never exceed the net minimum wage but should be enough to survive. In that way people would allways strive to get a job.

Now, per my proposal: 5,000 to every adult yields 1.2 T ( the reason to make it per adult and not per person is to avoid using kids as a source of income) currently the budget is 3.8 T, so yes this would need some sort of tax reform before before being enacted, or maybe in ten years 1.2T that amount will not be such a big percent of gdp as it is right now.

Will it be business ready in ten years? yes.

It's business ready now if you want to invest in it. The problem is, it cost prohibitive. And it will probably still be cost prohibitive in ten years for most "driver" jobs because most driver jobs today consist of other things besides just driving.

Yeah, eventually most driving will be done by computers. So? Once, most driving was powered by horses. We transitioned. People had to change careers. That's progress and how it works.

I understand Milton Friedman is a conservative economist, I agree with Friedman on a lot of things. I disagree with him on this. Again... you didn't address my counter argument. Whenever you establish an arbitrary "minimum" it prices some individuals out because they don't meet the level of value you've established. What do we do about them?

Okay... let's say I have two jobs in my plant... One is for toilet cleaner and the other is for sweeper. I hire two people to do these menial jobs and they are paid a menial wage. You come along and tell me I have to increase the "minimum income" which will double the amount I currently pay. Guess what I am going to do? I'm going to fire one of them and the other will be doing both jobs.

Ah , Boss,
But universal basic income would not be imposed directly on corporations ... and that's the beauty of it.It just requires an increase in tax revenues. Steve Keen is bold enough to suggest that since the Fed can create money, it can put that money directly into every citizen's accounts. And such action will not cause any inflation if two conditions are met:
1) The country has sufficient production infrastructure
2) Trade balance remains stable ( and in this the US might be the exception since it is the dollar is the reserve currency ) .

It will actually increase consumption ( demand side economics).

 

[CultureCitizen]

I did said clearly they were not business ready ( the driving cars), as robots, yes, indeed they have been increasing their numbers steadily , but by extrapolating their growth , I estimate it will take another decade before the real job shredding starts : 2035, give or take a couple of years.
So I say it is time to look at the posible consequences before another unemployment crisis hits us.

*sigh* It's NOT going to be a crisis.

I imagine, once was a time, a mother had to break the news to her little son that he couldn't grow up to be a stagecoach driver like his father because people weren't using stagecoaches anymore. I'm sure his heart was broken over this but he went on to become something else. The same will happen with Uber drivers! Sorry, little Timmy, you can't be a Uber driver like Daddy when you grow up because there won't be any!

Indeed!!! But the problem is that's not an inter-generational change. Uber was founded in 2009, by 2027 it will stop employing humans. That is a change that takes less than a generation. Someone who started working as uber driver as a middle aged man will have to abandon that job long before he reaches retirement age.
As I said, it is not that changes worry me , but the rate at which theese changes are happening.

 

[Boss]

Ah , Boss,
But universal basic income would not be imposed directly on corporations ... and that's the beauty of it.It just requires an increase in tax revenues. Steve Keen is bold enough to suggest that since the Fed can create money, it can put that money directly into every citizen's accounts. And such action will not cause any inflation if two conditions are met:
1) The country has sufficient production infrastructure
2) Trade balance remains stable ( and in this the US might be the exception since it is the dollar is the reserve currency ) .

It will actually increase consumption ( demand side economics).

This is still stupid. I don't want my taxes increased. I want my taxes decreased and to have more money in my pocket to spend on things I want to spend it on. I want the actual functioning of government to be limited to the few things outlined in the Constitution, Article I Sec. 8, so that it costs me very little. I don't want the Fed creating money, I would rather have currency based on the gold standard again so that we can be assured of it's consistent value. What purpose does it serve to give someone twice as much income if the income is worth half as much?

I have no problem with increasing production infrastructure. That creates jobs. You do this by strengthening the dollar and lowering taxes. That's the opposite of what you're proposing. Trade balances don't bother me.... there are a million reasons we run a trade deficit and they're not all bad reasons. You and I run a "trade deficit" with the local grocery store! We buy far more from them than we sell to them. Is that a BAD thing? Of course not, we get a benefit from it.

 

[CultureCitizen]

Ah , Boss,
But universal basic income would not be imposed directly on corporations ... and that's the beauty of it.It just requires an increase in tax revenues. Steve Keen is bold enough to suggest that since the Fed can create money, it can put that money directly into every citizen's accounts. And such action will not cause any inflation if two conditions are met:
1) The country has sufficient production infrastructure
2) Trade balance remains stable ( and in this the US might be the exception since it is the dollar is the reserve currency ) .

It will actually increase consumption ( demand side economics).

This is still stupid. I don't want my taxes increased. I want my taxes decreased and to have more money in my pocket to spend on things I want to spend it on. I want the actual functioning of government to be limited to the few things outlined in the Constitution, Article I Sec. 8, so that it costs me very little. I don't want the Fed creating money, I would rather have currency based on the gold standard again so that we can be assured of it's consistent value. What purpose does it serve to give someone twice as much income if the income is worth half as much?

I have no problem with increasing production infrastructure. That creates jobs. You do this by strengthening the dollar and lowering taxes. That's the opposite of what you're proposing. Trade balances don't bother me.... there are a million reasons we run a trade deficit and they're not all bad reasons. You and I run a "trade deficit" with the local grocery store! We buy far more from them than we sell to them. Is that a BAD thing? Of course not, we get a benefit from it.

Yes ! You want your taxes decresed and have money on your pocket to SPEND on things! Right on spot.
And there lies the crux of the matter.
During the last 16 years we have seen decreasing employment levels and a steady drop in the median household income ( see charts), and an overall increase in household debt. IMHO that is what keeps the US economy stagnated: households have less disposable income.

Inflation only happens when you increase the money supply but your production levels remain constant.

Note: Running a deficit is bad under the context I stablished : printing money to give a basic income. It is bad because you are not increasing your production levels and yes , the end result will be inflation. So, yes, that's a solution that is not free of sideffects. On the bright side, it doesn't increase anyone's taxes ( directly).


https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipe...GDP_per_capita_vs_median_household_income.png
Income Gini Ratio for Households by Race of Householder, All Races
'United States Households Debt To Gdp | 1952-2017 | Data | Chart | Calendar'

 

[Boss]

Ah , Boss,
But universal basic income would not be imposed directly on corporations ... and that's the beauty of it.It just requires an increase in tax revenues. Steve Keen is bold enough to suggest that since the Fed can create money, it can put that money directly into every citizen's accounts. And such action will not cause any inflation if two conditions are met:
1) The country has sufficient production infrastructure
2) Trade balance remains stable ( and in this the US might be the exception since it is the dollar is the reserve currency ) .

It will actually increase consumption ( demand side economics).

This is still stupid. I don't want my taxes increased. I want my taxes decreased and to have more money in my pocket to spend on things I want to spend it on. I want the actual functioning of government to be limited to the few things outlined in the Constitution, Article I Sec. 8, so that it costs me very little. I don't want the Fed creating money, I would rather have currency based on the gold standard again so that we can be assured of it's consistent value. What purpose does it serve to give someone twice as much income if the income is worth half as much?

I have no problem with increasing production infrastructure. That creates jobs. You do this by strengthening the dollar and lowering taxes. That's the opposite of what you're proposing. Trade balances don't bother me.... there are a million reasons we run a trade deficit and they're not all bad reasons. You and I run a "trade deficit" with the local grocery store! We buy far more from them than we sell to them. Is that a BAD thing? Of course not, we get a benefit from it.

Yes ! You want your taxes decresed and have money on your pocket to SPEND on things! Right on spot.
And there lies the crux of the matter.
During the last 16 years we have seen decreasing employment levels and a steady drop in the median household income ( see charts), and an overall increase in household debt. IMHO that is what keeps the US economy stagnated: households have less disposable income.

Inflation only happens when you increase the money supply but your production levels remain constant.

Note: Running a deficit is bad under the context I stablished : printing money to give a basic income. It is bad because you are not increasing your production levels and yes , the end result will be inflation. So, yes, that's a solution that is not free of sideffects. On the bright side, it doesn't increase anyone's taxes ( directly).


https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipe...GDP_per_capita_vs_median_household_income.png
Income Gini Ratio for Households by Race of Householder, All Races
'United States Households Debt To Gdp | 1952-2017 | Data | Chart | Calendar'

There is so much here to tackle I don't know where to start.

The past 8 years, we've had an anti-capitalist administration doing all it can to punish capitalism. Before that, we had 8 years of a globalist who embraced corporatism. What we've not tried lately is reducing regulation and getting government out of the way of free market capitalism.

Inflation happens when you increase the money supply like Obama did how many times? 3 or 4? And isn't your idea to increase the money supply to each individual? Clearly you understand the problem here because you maintain that we would need to increase production... but here's the thing, production doesn't get increased simply because you want it to increase. It also doesn't automatically get increased just because there is more money in pockets. Especially when the money is worth less than it was yesterday. Under that condition, many people tend to pay off debt and invest in things that retain value like land which isn't produced.

And I have no idea where you get the notion that we're going to give every adult $5,000 but we're not going to pay more taxes. Sure we can just have the Federal Reserve print the money up but why not just have them print up $20 trillion and pay off the national debt? It's because the 'downside' to that would be having to take wheelbarrows full of cash to the store to buy a loaf of bread.

 

[CultureCitizen]

Ah , Boss,
But universal basic income would not be imposed directly on corporations ... and that's the beauty of it.It just requires an increase in tax revenues. Steve Keen is bold enough to suggest that since the Fed can create money, it can put that money directly into every citizen's accounts. And such action will not cause any inflation if two conditions are met:
1) The country has sufficient production infrastructure
2) Trade balance remains stable ( and in this the US might be the exception since it is the dollar is the reserve currency ) .

It will actually increase consumption ( demand side economics).

This is still stupid. I don't want my taxes increased. I want my taxes decreased and to have more money in my pocket to spend on things I want to spend it on. I want the actual functioning of government to be limited to the few things outlined in the Constitution, Article I Sec. 8, so that it costs me very little. I don't want the Fed creating money, I would rather have currency based on the gold standard again so that we can be assured of it's consistent value. What purpose does it serve to give someone twice as much income if the income is worth half as much?

I have no problem with increasing production infrastructure. That creates jobs. You do this by strengthening the dollar and lowering taxes. That's the opposite of what you're proposing. Trade balances don't bother me.... there are a million reasons we run a trade deficit and they're not all bad reasons. You and I run a "trade deficit" with the local grocery store! We buy far more from them than we sell to them. Is that a BAD thing? Of course not, we get a benefit from it.

Yes ! You want your taxes decresed and have money on your pocket to SPEND on things! Right on spot.
And there lies the crux of the matter.
During the last 16 years we have seen decreasing employment levels and a steady drop in the median household income ( see charts), and an overall increase in household debt. IMHO that is what keeps the US economy stagnated: households have less disposable income.

Inflation only happens when you increase the money supply but your production levels remain constant.

Note: Running a deficit is bad under the context I stablished : printing money to give a basic income. It is bad because you are not increasing your production levels and yes , the end result will be inflation. So, yes, that's a solution that is not free of sideffects. On the bright side, it doesn't increase anyone's taxes ( directly).


https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipe...GDP_per_capita_vs_median_household_income.png
Income Gini Ratio for Households by Race of Householder, All Races
'United States Households Debt To Gdp | 1952-2017 | Data | Chart | Calendar'

There is so much here to tackle I don't know where to start.

The past 8 years, we've had an anti-capitalist administration doing all it can to punish capitalism. Before that, we had 8 years of a globalist who embraced corporatism. What we've not tried lately is reducing regulation and getting government out of the way of free market capitalism.

Inflation happens when you increase the money supply like Obama did how many times? 3 or 4? And isn't your idea to increase the money supply to each individual? Clearly you understand the problem here because you maintain that we would need to increase production... but here's the thing, production doesn't get increased simply because you want it to increase. It also doesn't automatically get increased just because there is more money in pockets. Especially when the money is worth less than it was yesterday. Under that condition, many people tend to pay off debt and invest in things that retain value like land which isn't produced.

And I have no idea where you get the notion that we're going to give every adult $5,000 but we're not going to pay more taxes. Sure we can just have the Federal Reserve print the money up but why not just have them print up $20 trillion and pay off the national debt? It's because the 'downside' to that would be having to take wheelbarrows full of cash to the store to buy a loaf of bread.

Ok , let's take it step by step:

The past 8 years, we've had an anti-capitalist administration doing all it can to punish capitalism. Before that, we had 8 years of a globalist who embraced corporatism. What we've not tried lately is reducing regulation and getting government out of the way of free market capitalism.

Agreed. But this paragraph made me think about Reagan, weren't Reagonomics all about reducing taxes and regulation? How did the economy perform then? It has been tried, it didn't yield the results that were promissed.


Inflation happens when you increase the money supply like Obama did how many times? 3 or 4? And isn't your idea to increase the money supply to each individual? Clearly you understand the problem here because you maintain that we would need to increase production... but here's the thing, production doesn't get increased simply because you want it to increase. It also doesn't automatically get increased just because there is more money in pockets. Especially when the money is worth less than it was yesterday. Under that condition, many people tend to pay off debt and invest in things that retain value like land which isn't produced.

Well, here comes the paradigm shift. The Central Bank doesn't create money , it is the banks. They create money when they extend a loan. And that money gets destroyed as the loan gets repaid.

I would urge you to watch this video to advance the discussion:


Now, if banks create money through loans, and no inflation is produced as a sideffect, then it follows that a relatively small disbursement of cash ( 8% of gdp ) is unlikely to cause inflation given it has enough industry to produce goods and services ( the situation in a country with no industry is the opposite, it will suffer inflation, because it has no way of producing the goods and services people will require, but that is not the case of the USA with a rich agricultural and industrial base).

The second point .Yes people will pay debt ( those with debt) , but it is precisely a high level of debt which causes stagnation ( as a significant portion of gdp goes into the financial system, which doesn't actually produce anything).

Look at the charts of Japan and USA below. The US had its two worse crisis when the ratio of private debt vs gdp exploded.

Last item : buying land: with 5,000 ? I don't think so.

 

[The Sage of Main Street]

Well, unions and communism were the answer to the industrial revolution in some countries, in other it was revolts. In light of such answers I consider a minimum income to be a mild one.

Yes changes have allways happened but not without consequences.

Yep, there is always consequences to change. But what does that support any argument for?

Free market capitalism brings prosperity freedom and happiness.

Look... I get the concept here. But what you have to remember is, any such arbitrary value you put as your minimum will effectively cull all individuals who can't meet that value. We know this to be a fact because it's what happened when we enacted the Davis-Bacon Act. A 1931 law which established the requirement for paying the "local prevailing wages" on public works projects for laborers and mechanics.

Before this act passed, black unemployment rates were lower than whites. Blacks could always get jobs like these because they were willing to work for less and employers were willing to hire them because it was a better value. When you pass a law effectively forcing the rate of pay to be the same regardless, guess who didn't get those jobs anymore?

Now, I am not arguing this was socially right or that we should repeal this or go back to the old days... just making the point that when you set a minimum income the consequences are a detriment to those who may fall under the value line. You will eliminate jobs which might otherwise be available.

In MY opinion, it is FAR better to allow the principles of supply and demand to work in a free market nature. Employment is voluntary, no one is forced to accept a job that doesn't pay enough. Who are you to arbitrarily negotiate that rate on my behalf? I may have my own reasons for accepting a lower wage.... maybe I need experience? Maybe I have some kind of disability that prevents me from meeting this minimum value? Maybe income isn't as important to me as the benefits of the job? Why shouldn't I be able to negotiate on behalf of myself?

The Free Market Is a Fleece Market

So you want GreedHead employers to set the minimum income instead. Making a united economic oligarchy even worse, there are too many slavish or desperate scabs out there to further drive wages down to the lowest common denominator.

 

[The Sage of Main Street]

I did said clearly they were not business ready ( the driving cars), as robots, yes, indeed they have been increasing their numbers steadily , but by extrapolating their growth , I estimate it will take another decade before the real job shredding starts : 2035, give or take a couple of years.
So I say it is time to look at the posible consequences before another unemployment crisis hits us.

*sigh* It's NOT going to be a crisis.

I imagine, once was a time, a mother had to break the news to her little son that he couldn't grow up to be a stagecoach driver like his father because people weren't using stagecoaches anymore. I'm sure his heart was broken over this but he went on to become something else. The same will happen with Uber drivers! Sorry, little Timmy, you can't be a Uber driver like Daddy when you grow up because there won't be any!

Top Floors Collapse If the Ones Below Do

All white-collar jobs, including upper management, can be replaced by computer programs. The smug Yuppies are trying to humiliate and scare us, when they are just as much useless dead wood as they think we are. They are generic; they only "know how to" do their jobs, just like most American boys "know how to" play baseball but can't even make their high-school teams.

 

[anotherlife]

Many economists ( Steeve Keen, Milton Friedman ) as well as some institutions (singularity university) and busienssmen (Elon Musk) advocate for a universal minimum income.

What's your position regarding this policy?
References:
Universal minimum income to be above poverty line ( about $11 per day)
Minimum wage ( about $57 per day)
Median individual income ( about $88 per day)

Addendum :the singularity university is dedicated to solving big problems using AI. Elon musk is concerned about the role of man in an increasingly aoutomated world.

Basic income - Wikipedia

Universal income is implementable in some countries and unthinkable in some others. It all depends how the national public is controlled. In the USA, universal income is unthinkable. But if it was not a taboo, then the best level of it would be where 50 % of people can afford purchases and 50 % can't. This has already been proven to be the best income policy and asset policy in most 3rd world countries.

 

[CultureCitizen]

Many economists ( Steeve Keen, Milton Friedman ) as well as some institutions (singularity university) and busienssmen (Elon Musk) advocate for a universal minimum income.

What's your position regarding this policy?
References:
Universal minimum income to be above poverty line ( about $11 per day)
Minimum wage ( about $57 per day)
Median individual income ( about $88 per day)

Addendum :the singularity university is dedicated to solving big problems using AI. Elon musk is concerned about the role of man in an increasingly aoutomated world.

Basic income - Wikipedia

Universal income is implementable in some countries and unthinkable in some others. It all depends how the national public is controlled. In the USA, universal income is unthinkable. But if it was not a taboo, then the best level of it would be where 50 % of people can afford purchases and 50 % can't. This has already been proven to be the best income policy and asset policy in most 3rd world countries.

Why do you think it is unthinkable in the USA?
I don't understand exactly what do you mean with "the best level of it would be where 50% of people can afford purchasess and 50% can't"
What kind of purchases are you refering to ?

 

[Boss]

Agreed. But this paragraph made me think about Reagan, weren't Reagonomics all about reducing taxes and regulation? How did the economy perform then? It has been tried, it didn't yield the results that were promissed.

What happened was 97 straight months of economic growth and prosperity, never before realized in peacetime American history at the time. A 75% increase in tax revenues over 8 years. 114 million jobs. Left in the dust (and apparently forgotten) was the Carter Malaise. Double-digit inflation, 21% prime interest rates, foreclosures and bankruptcies galore, etc.

Now he passed this off to Pappy Bush who was no Reaganomics guy... he didn't understand it... called it "voodoo economics"... and inside 4 years, he stalled it out with tax increases demanded by the Democrats. Since then, everyone who didn't like Reagan has decried it as a failure.

As for the rest of your post... I am not interested in following the Brits or the Japanese. I already know what works better than anything man has ever created. It's NOT some pie in the sky notion of free money falling from the heavens.

And by the way... $5k a year? I could live off that.

 

[anotherlife]

Many economists ( Steeve Keen, Milton Friedman ) as well as some institutions (singularity university) and busienssmen (Elon Musk) advocate for a universal minimum income.

What's your position regarding this policy?
References:
Universal minimum income to be above poverty line ( about $11 per day)
Minimum wage ( about $57 per day)
Median individual income ( about $88 per day)

Addendum :the singularity university is dedicated to solving big problems using AI. Elon musk is concerned about the role of man in an increasingly aoutomated world.

Basic income - Wikipedia

Universal income is implementable in some countries and unthinkable in some others. It all depends how the national public is controlled. In the USA, universal income is unthinkable. But if it was not a taboo, then the best level of it would be where 50 % of people can afford purchases and 50 % can't. This has already been proven to be the best income policy and asset policy in most 3rd world countries.

Why do you think it is unthinkable in the USA?
I don't understand exactly what do you mean with "the best level of it would be where 50% of people can afford purchasess and 50% can't"
What kind of purchases are you refering to ?

The USA is based on the philosophy of everyone for himself. So anything that starts with the word universal is only accepted there if it makes them pay, as is currently.

The 50 % asset purchase level as a prime benchmark for income was proven by 3rd world handouts. If we model universal income as a handout. In the handout economy model, when everything is handed out to you, you trash it and continue in your poverty. If nothing is handed out to you, then you simply are poor unchanged. But the data shows that if you handout covers ~ 50 % of your needs, then you are motivated to appreciate everything. I could list the products and distribution procedures that were used to measure this, but it may be too long to write down here.

 

[CultureCitizen]

Agreed. But this paragraph made me think about Reagan, weren't Reagonomics all about reducing taxes and regulation? How did the economy perform then? It has been tried, it didn't yield the results that were promissed.

What happened was 97 straight months of economic growth and prosperity, never before realized in peacetime American history at the time. A 75% increase in tax revenues over 8 years. 114 million jobs. Left in the dust (and apparently forgotten) was the Carter Malaise. Double-digit inflation, 21% prime interest rates, foreclosures and bankruptcies galore, etc.

Now he passed this off to Pappy Bush who was no Reaganomics guy... he didn't understand it... called it "voodoo economics"... and inside 4 years, he stalled it out with tax increases demanded by the Democrats. Since then, everyone who didn't like Reagan has decried it as a failure.

As for the rest of your post... I am not interested in following the Brits or the Japanese. I already know what works better than anything man has ever created. It's NOT some pie in the sky notion of free money falling from the heavens.

And by the way... $5k a year? I could live off that.

Hmm,
Well Boss, you don't accept the viewpoint of a conservative American economist ( Milton) , but you don't accept either the viewpoint of British economists, I find hard to advance this discussion, which is a pitty, as I normally find your viewpoint both challenging and interesting.

You can live off 5k a year? Yes, but you wouldn't be able to go on vacations or buy a new car, and your health insurance would be a very basic one. So yes, that's the idea: you can live with that and you have enough to retool your skills, but that's about it. You are not going to be rich and you are going to be in real trouble if you have a kid.

Regarding Reagan,
The government has two main sources of income: taxes and debt. Under Reagan public debt increased significantly. I am not sure if Bush could have maintained the tax cuts under such circumstances. ... but then, yes Dubya made the debt a lot worse with no economic growth whatsoever.

Change in Debt as a Percentage of GDP by President

 

[Boss]

Hmm,
Well Boss, you don't accept the viewpoint of a conservative American economist ( Milton) , but you don't accept either the viewpoint of British economists, I find hard to advance this discussion, which is a pitty, as I normally find your viewpoint both challenging and interesting.

Again, I respect Friedman, I agree with him on most things. I disagree with him on this. And sorry, the British economy is not exactly a stellar example I think we need to pattern ourselves after.

You can live off 5k a year? Yes, but you wouldn't be able to go on vacations or buy a new car, and your health insurance would be a very basic one. So yes, that's the idea: you can live with that and you have enough to retool your skills, but that's about it. You are not going to be rich and you are going to be in real trouble if you have a kid.

Yes, I could live off $5k. No, I couldn't live like a king. My skills are such that I could barter them for a new car if that's what I needed. My kids are grown and I'm an old Indian who doesn't believe in modern medicine. My point was, $5k means different things to different people. First of all. it's a whole lot more money to someone in rural Mississippi as opposed to Los Angeles. Does this plan apply to the homeless bums? Can they get their checks daily before the liquor stores close or shall it be a weekly or monthly event? What about the stay at home mom who's watching someone's kids for $100/wk... should she quit and just take the handout instead?

See, you come up with these ideas with the best of intentions but you don't seem to understand there isn't a cookie cutter solution that fits everyone. Some people are going exploit your idea. And I guarantee, inside 30 days of implementation, we'd start hearing the whining about this person or that person who just can't survive on $5k because of their situation. Then it will be this big push to raise it to $7k or $10k... on and on. Each time, those who object will be heartless bastards who don't have compassion.

Regarding Reagan,
The government has two main sources of income: taxes and debt. Under Reagan public debt increased significantly. I am not sure if Bush could have maintained the tax cuts under such circumstances. ... but then, yes Dubya made the debt a lot worse with no economic growth whatsoever.

Okay.... DEBT isn't a source of income. Not unless I missed something important in economics. Under Reagan, debt increased because Congress refused to cut spending. Reagan wanted them to... in fact, he pushed for a line item veto and lobbied his whole life for a Balanced Budget Amendment. His tax cuts actually INCREASED revenues by 75%... go check this out at the US Treasury Dept. website if you don't believe me. And again... Bushes weren't Reagan. Neither seemed to have an understanding of supply side economics.

 

[CultureCitizen]

Can they get their checks daily before the liquor stores close or shall it be a weekly or monthly event? What about the stay at home mom who's watching someone's kids for $100/wk... should she quit and just take the handout instead?

1) Yes , it includes homeless bums.
2) No , they would get monthly checks. If they spend all in in the first week. Well tough luck, that was their call.
3) Well if it is a lot of money in Missisipi and you live in LA , you would probably consider moving to Missisipi ( or any other place for that matter).
4) Taking care fo kids for $100 per week? For how many hours? Well , maybe she would quit or maybe not. That's her call. Maybe she is better off learning a degree online from MIT . If I am getting less than $8 per hour I would certainly quit and get another part time job that pays more.

It doesn't fit everyone, but it certainly fit 90% of people. If you work and make money you would get $5,000 back as a tax cut. Which I find great.

Yes, there can be a push to rise it. In fact it will rise, because it will be afixed percent of gdp ( e.g.10-15) and it will allways be less than the government tax revenues.

As I said the risk is when a country has no industrial or agricultural base, but the US has it.
This policy would be useless in Zimbabwe or Afghanistan, money supply will not increase production or productivity.

Regarding Reagan,
My source is usually the Federal Reserve of St Louis , because they have a nice set of reports. According to the site tax revenues as a percent of gdp went down from 18.6% in 1981 to 17.3% in 1988. That is a 6% decrease in tax revenue.
So far the FRED has prooved to be a reliable , soI can't accept your argument unless you provide the link to your source.

Now my point, if government cuts back government spending drastically it can create a recession. So Reagonomics worked because the government maintained the expenditure level ( by increasing debt), in spite of the decrease in tax revenues .

Federal Receipts as Percent of Gross Domestic Product

I will reconsider my position once you provide the link to your source.

 

[RodISHI]

Many economists ( Steeve Keen, Milton Friedman ) as well as some institutions (singularity university) and busienssmen (Elon Musk) advocate for a universal minimum income.

What's your position regarding this policy?
References:
Universal minimum income to be above poverty line ( about $11 per day)
Minimum wage ( about $57 per day)
Median individual income ( about $88 per day)

Basic income - Wikipedia

I'm assuming you to mean universal in the sense of being global (most people simply associate it with just across the states).

If this is what you mean, I am strictly against this notion. The only way for some nations to really compete with developed economies is with their ultra cheap labor force. If you instill a universal minimum wage (which is noted to encourage unemployment, if the wage is above the equilibrium point of labor supply and demand for it), then you are likely to increase the gap between the industrialized world and emerging economies (thereby increasing human suffering) rather than healing that gap.

This isn't even getting into more technical issues such as our exchange rates, how different governments handle their currency, social support issues, etc.

Well , I was only considering it for the US. If it was adopted on a universal scale we would need a global currency.

Does not work as not all areas cost the same to live in.

 

[CultureCitizen]

Many economists ( Steeve Keen, Milton Friedman ) as well as some institutions (singularity university) and busienssmen (Elon Musk) advocate for a universal minimum income.

What's your position regarding this policy?
References:
Universal minimum income to be above poverty line ( about $11 per day)
Minimum wage ( about $57 per day)
Median individual income ( about $88 per day)

Basic income - Wikipedia

I'm assuming you to mean universal in the sense of being global (most people simply associate it with just across the states).

If this is what you mean, I am strictly against this notion. The only way for some nations to really compete with developed economies is with their ultra cheap labor force. If you instill a universal minimum wage (which is noted to encourage unemployment, if the wage is above the equilibrium point of labor supply and demand for it), then you are likely to increase the gap between the industrialized world and emerging economies (thereby increasing human suffering) rather than healing that gap.

This isn't even getting into more technical issues such as our exchange rates, how different governments handle their currency, social support issues, etc.

Well , I was only considering it for the US. If it was adopted on a universal scale we would need a global currency.

Does not work as not all areas cost the same to live in.

But , last time I checked the US was a free country: you are free to move anywhere you like.
Probably the only restriction would be that you spend 90% of the time within the US, as part of the goal is spending the money to increase production.

 

[The Sage of Main Street]

Agreed. But this paragraph made me think about Reagan, weren't Reagonomics all about reducing taxes and regulation? How did the economy perform then? It has been tried, it didn't yield the results that were promissed.

What happened was 97 straight months of economic growth and prosperity, never before realized in peacetime American history at the time. A 75% increase in tax revenues over 8 years. 114 million jobs. Left in the dust (and apparently forgotten) was the Carter Malaise. Double-digit inflation, 21% prime interest rates, foreclosures and bankruptcies galore, etc.

Now he passed this off to Pappy Bush who was no Reaganomics guy... he didn't understand it... called it "voodoo economics"... and inside 4 years, he stalled it out with tax increases demanded by the Democrats. Since then, everyone who didn't like Reagan has decried it as a failure.

As for the rest of your post... I am not interested in following the Brits or the Japanese. I already know what works better than anything man has ever created. It's NOT some pie in the sky notion of free money falling from the heavens.

And by the way... $5k a year? I could live off that.

An Oil Embargo Is a Justification for War

It was not about economic ideologies, it was about oil prices. Carter let them go up, Reagan forced them down, Daddy Bush drove them up.