What's your position on a universal minimum income?

[eflatminor]

If forced to choose between a universal income and that status quo of a welfare state, I would choose the former, though I support neither.

 

[CultureCitizen]

The minimum income would cover part of that cost. What's the big deal? You could adjust by inflation per zip, but that would only complicate matters . There are a ton of things that could go wrong. Easy and simple every adult gets the same minimum income.

True , to some extent. Ben Franklin is one of the founding fathers whom I most respect. He did dealt with slaves, but rectified his position in his later life.

I am not sure what he would have thought in a modern contexts. Most of the founding fathers were both against big government but also against big corporations.

I constantly hear the market has allways found a way to provide the jobs. But so many people forget that real free market and capitalism only has 170 years in the US. Before that it was a slave based economic system.

 

[Unkotare]

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.

...

That is not true.

 

[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).

I am HOPING you are being facetious.

Nope,
I am not being facetious. I will be blunt: bankers can create money by increasing debt. When private debt exceeds a certain level ( typically 150% of gdp) a crisis happens: consumption is reduced, sales decline, layoffs increase... etc.
How is that not greed? And why should bankers have the privilege of creating money and get away with murder ( aka bailed out) ?
Why not rescue the little folk ?

And let's be clear on this : banks never risk their own equity. In a worst case scenario they will use deposits to cover their arses.

 

[Unkotare]

The minimum income would cover part of that cost. What's the big deal? You could adjust by inflation per zip, but that would only complicate matters . There are a ton of things that could go wrong. Easy and simple every adult gets the same minimum income.

True , to some extent. Ben Franklin is one of the founding fathers whom I most respect. He did dealt with slaves, but rectified his position in his later life.

I am not sure what he would have thought in a modern contexts. Most of the founding fathers were both against big government but also against big corporations.

I constantly hear the market has allways found a way to provide the jobs. But so many people forget that real free market and capitalism only has 170 years in the US. Before that it was a slave based economic system.

The entire economy was never "slave-based."

 

[there4eyeM]

The example of Franklin is a classic case in point. He was very much a self made man, built up enough of a fortune from nothing that he retired from the world of affairs and pursued his interests and enjoyment of life. He was a great capitalist. He appreciated that money was for living.
This insatiable avarice in fashion today is disgusting.

 

[danielpalos]

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

We have laws regarding employment at will. Unemployment compensation that solves for capitalism's, natural rate of unemployment, solves for that capital inefficiency on an at-will basis.

 

[danielpalos]

Yo, how about just getting an EDUCATION, FOOLS!!!

"GTP"
View attachment 112925

capitalism has a Natural rate of unemployment.

 

[danielpalos]

I'm all for it if you pick up the bill.

Potheads don't mind paying taxes for good pot.

 

[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 ?

The USA is based on the philosophy of everyone for himself.

...

That is not true.

I agree,
People united during WWII, and when 9 / 11 happened.

The minimum income would cover part of that cost. What's the big deal? You could adjust by inflation per zip, but that would only complicate matters . There are a ton of things that could go wrong. Easy and simple every adult gets the same minimum income.

True , to some extent. Ben Franklin is one of the founding fathers whom I most respect. He did dealt with slaves, but rectified his position in his later life.

I am not sure what he would have thought in a modern contexts. Most of the founding fathers were both against big government but also against big corporations.

I constantly hear the market has allways found a way to provide the jobs. But so many people forget that real free market and capitalism only has 170 years in the US. Before that it was a slave based economic system.

The entire economy was never "slave-based."

Nor were greek or roman economies , and yet they are considered a slaved based society because a significant amount of labor proceeded from slaves.

 

[CultureCitizen]

Yo, how about just getting an EDUCATION, FOOLS!!!

"GTP"
View attachment 112925

capitalism has a Natural rate of unemployment.

The level of unemployment is a fake measure. Employment level on the other hand peaked in 200 and has never again gotten to that point. Iff it recovers to that point I'll put to rest any concerns I have regarding the role of automation.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

And why should bankers have the privilege of creating money and get away with murder ( aka bailed out) ?

too stupid and liberal !! Many banks went bankrupt and lost everything, many were taken over with owners losing everything!! Those that survived paid loans back quickly and depression was avoided.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

Why not rescue the little folk ?

total stupid!!! trillions each year spent on failed individuals for life who never pay back a penny!!
Bank bailouts were 100% different!!! Do you ever get anything right?

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

If forced to choose between a universal income and that status quo of a welfare state, I would choose the former, though I support neither.

Friedman proposed a minimum income to reduce the influence of the crippling liberal welfare state in the lives of poor people. It was to replace welfare housing food stamps etc etc by just giving them a check each week and letting them learn to manage and ration the money like other people must do. Also, the payments were to be administered in such a way to encourage work rather than discouraged it.

So there is no problem with conservatives/ or libertarians supporting it in concept, but, it could never be implemented, and the programs it was designed to replace killed for good! The liberals would want it as an addition to existing programs thus increasing the influence of the crippling welfare state

 

[CultureCitizen]

Why not rescue the little folk ?

total stupid!!! trillion each year spent on failed individuals for life who never pay back a penny!!
Bank bailouts were 100% different!!! Do you ever get anything right?

Did you know the exact same thing happend in the '30s? Private debt skyrocketed and was followed by a collapse in the economy. Japan went through 20 years of stagnation precisely for the same reason. And what about the US? The economy isn't exactly booming.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

Why not rescue the little folk ?

total stupid!!! trillion each year spent on failed individuals for life who never pay back a penny!!
Bank bailouts were 100% different!!! Do you ever get anything right?

Did you know the exact same thing happend in the '30s? Private debt skyrocketed and was followed by a collapse in the economy. Japan went through 20 years of stagnation precisely for the same reason. And what about the US? The economy isn't exactly booming.

notice how you had to change the subject????? What do you learn from that??

 

[CultureCitizen]

Why not rescue the little folk ?

total stupid!!! trillion each year spent on failed individuals for life who never pay back a penny!!
Bank bailouts were 100% different!!! Do you ever get anything right?

Did you know the exact same thing happend in the '30s? Private debt skyrocketed and was followed by a collapse in the economy. Japan went through 20 years of stagnation precisely for the same reason. And what about the US? The economy isn't exactly booming.

notice how you had to change the subject????? What do you learn from that??

No , I didn't change it . It is to drill the point that the only thing they achieved was to sabilize the economy.
Furthermore, in spite of Obama's declarations it seems the bailout was much larger and those loans were not fully paid:

The Big Bank Bailout

"In fact, $7.7 trillion of the secret emergency lending was only disclosed to the public after Congress forced a one-time audit of the Federal Reserve in November of 2011. After the audit the public found out the bailout was in trillions not billions; and that there were no requirements attached to the bailout money - the banks could use it for any purpose."

So again, why bail out the banks and not the little folk?

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

. It is to drill the point that the only thing they achieved was to sabilize the economy.

1) you did change subject
2) stabilizing economy is far far better than Depression!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

Furthermore, in spite of Obama's declarations it seems the bailout was much larger and those loans were not fully paid:

liberal liar!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Not all of the banks who received TARP money have repaid the loans. ... But, the fact remains, due to interest, dividends and other revenue streams, the government has received more money back ($266.7 billion, according to the Treasury) than it handed out to banks under the bailout law ($245.2 billion).
Barack Obama says banks paid back all the federal bailout money ...
www.politifact.com/.../barack-obama-says-banks-paid-back-all-federal-bail/

 

[eflatminor]

If forced to choose between a universal income and that status quo of a welfare state, I would choose the former, though I support neither.

Friedman proposed a minimum income to reduce the influence of the crippling liberal welfare state in the lives of poor people. It was to replace welfare housing food stamps etc etc by just giving them a check each week and letting them learn to manage and ration the money like other people must do. Also, the payments were to be administered in such a way to encourage work rather than discouraged it.

So there is no problem with conservatives/ or libertarians supporting it in concept, but, it could never be implemented, and the programs it was designed to replace killed for good! The liberals would want it as an addition to existing programs thus increasing the influence of the crippling welfare state

Totally agree. I think Uncle Milty was a realist.