A basic income for everyone? Yes, Finland shows it really can work

Blah, blah, blah

Moving right along ...

 

I don't think you can even compare the US to the UK. But soon we may be able to. I mean the UK will become more comparable to the US.

LafayetteBis, please show us a shining example of a country with lots of diversity that possesses an exemplary economic model. Any ones with as much diversity as the US?
Can you point us to a country that's not in Western Europe or Northeast Asia?

You don't need to answer that question. I was just pointing out that Finland may not be the best example to point to.
If they try that in South Africa and it works, I'll be a lot more impressed.
(In fact if you wanted to do an experiment an NGO could probably try it on a tiny African country)

 

Oh please, it was Europe's fault for buying those trash investments America's banks were trying to pawn off.
And Spain and Ireland had entered their own financial troubles, fueled by unsustainable investment and a construction bubble. I needn't explain why the Greeks had issues...

 

COMPARING APPLES & ORANGES

Oh, but I want to answer it! Because therein lies your mistake.

In the above, you're asking to compare apples and coconuts just because they are "fruit". If you had any economic training, you'd understand that such a comparison is unacceptable because it is inherently unequitable. Economic models, like "apples and oranges" are both fruit, are not necessarily comparable by just one set of monetary values. Unless other factors (perhaps more important than purely monetary) are also taken into consideration.

The EU and the US are comparable economic identities. The economic structures are similar (if not identical), the life-styles very much the same. There is a huge population difference, the EU has a population more than twice that of the US. (GDP per capita of the EU is 40% of that of the US, but tracks that of the US very closely - as shown here.)

Most importantly, in terms of results when other variables are considered, you're "American model" is not the least bit EXEMPLARY.

You'd do well to read this presentation at the World Economic Forum (Davos, 2015): Is Europe outperforming the US? - excerpt:

The article is worth reading - namely because it underscores the fact that "well-being", which is the "product of economic performance", is more important than the absolute figures of economic performance ...

 

SEDA = Sustainable Economic Development Assessment

A caption from the model mentioned above, from its site here:

NB: SEDA means Sustainable Economic Development Assessment (SEDA) - which according to its authors is a "comprehensive diagnostic tool based on objective data, for ... (the purpose of which is to measure) the need of governments to pursue a balanced approach to raising the overall well-being of their citizens".

The use of financial quantifiers (dollars 'n cents) in showing economic performance has its limits. Monetary values give some comprehension of economic behaviour in a nation. But not necessarily the "BigPicture".

Which is a far more complex object to consider than just "data". And the performance differences in translating "dollars-into-sense" can be staggering:


What does the above infographic show? That, yes, the US is in the upper-echelon of countries in terms of GDP-per-capita performance. But other countries, mostly of the EU, obtain the same level of SEDA at much lower levels of "GDP per capita".

Which means quite simply: It is not how much of GDP per capita a country may generate that matters, but how well the country performs in terms of key socioeconomic parameters ...

 

Everybody was buying the SubPrime Trash at the time. But only the Uncle Sam came close to a Cerebral Financial Seizure.

The southern Europeans made the monumental mistake of - in the midst of the Great Recession that had impacted the world - to maintain employment by expanding government expenditures at a time when tax-revenues were diminishing due to growing unemployment. However, at the same time Euro borrowing-rates were skyrocketing - thus increasing National Debt and therefore pushing up EU interest-rates.

The southern-EU countries thought that the ECB would "bail them out", which it did finally. But, in the Maastricht Treaty, by which countries obtained entry into the EU-Euro, there is a clause the German's insisted upon. That long-term debt as a percentage of GDP must not exceed 3%.

They completely disregarded the rule, because their leadership (at the time) was employing the economic-tactic that had always worked in the past. Except that Euro borrowing rates were above 10% in particularly the southern ones and they could not afford the debt-payments.

Live 'n learn ... but neither the EU management in Brussels nor the ECB nor the Legislature in Strasbourg are ever likely to allow that to happen ever again.

Which is why they have taken a particularly hard-line against Greece, which had falsified its national accounts (with some help from Goldman Sachs) in order to obtain entry into the EU ...

 

Bollocks!

Increasing one's income is done by an ACT OF GOD!

Pray hard ... !!!

 

I can pray for you. Looking for courage, a heart or brain?

 

Let's hope so. It was painful to see you trying the 'Liberal Democracy=America; Social Demcoracy=Europe' cobblers.

 

The only Western country who could compete with the US? The comparison is already made. The difference traditionally is that the UK has higher pre-welfare inequalities, but a more effective welfare state. The Tories undoubtedly are changing that, with predictions of significant increases in child poverty.

 

America invents everything so is responsible for all economic growth. If Europe pulled its weight like America does we'd all have a much higher standard of living. USSR invented nothing, had guaranteed income, and contributed nothing to world inventions and growth. Can anybody guess why?

 

So your retorts are childish?

Why ?

 

How to provide a propaganda narrative. Take an issue in effect not long enough to actually gauge and find one person that confirms your bias and generalize it as the common outcome.

 

Yeah, a country of just over 5 million, compared to one With like 325 million.

Yes, I'm positive it would work swimmingly here.

Drivel & such.

 

Me too, it would indeed work well in the US. And I'll even bet it reduces both crime and kill-rates in the US.

Like most advances in European Social Democracies, they have mostly come from Scandinavia. The minimum wage will work up there first, and then be adopted by the rest of the EU.

Eat your heart out! (But I doubt you even have one ...)

 

I think it's a great idea to consider the effects of a Universal Basic Income (UBI) on rich folks. After all one of the arguments for UBI is that it will encourage people to pursue risky business adventures because their basic needs are being met.

I would like to see the looks on the UBI proponent's faces when a study is done only on the rich. Especially if the income is scaled up to cover McMansion style living. If the UBI people's arguments are true then we should get a ton of new businesses out of it. But can society stomach giving income to the rich? Ha Ha!

 

Money for nothing. Sign me up.

 

So who pays for all this free money?

 

The basic income is a step forward, but we need the government to pay the people in return for work. Mainly in education, research and exploration.
The more the technology is improving, the less people will have to work. Those sent into unemployed should be hired by the government. The government is already paying a lot of money for research, creating a lot of jobs. So they should simply create more jobs, employing the people instead of paying them to do nothing.
Just paying a basic income will inevitably increase the temptation to fall into complacency, superficiality, promiscuity and even depravity and criminality.

A more dynamic and interesting discussion is about the kind of jobs the government should give to the people. My ideas are like this:
- Edit Wikipedia and it's sister projects (there is a lot of categorization to be made at Wikimedia Commons for example)
- Build online catalogues with all the books published in the country, with all the movies, with all the newspapers
- Improve the transparency and create online, easy to read statistics like this - http://countrystats.wikia.com/wiki/Public_debt_of_Spain
- Make documentary movies about the natural features, about the museums, universities etc of the country and make them available online
- Space exploration

 

Nothing outside I see. How about brush clearing in national forests?

 

50 million free airline tickets to Finland would cost us less than $25 billion, massively increase the GDP of Finland, and many could find employment building the Mega-Mosque so many are clamoring for in Finland. How about an international airport in addition to the wall along the border with Mexico with a daily quota of free flights to European countries to be provided those who wish to emigrate from their native country, including U.S. citizens?

 

And why not? Perhaps thrusting themselves upwards in income. After all Henry Ford started in his garage.

The UBI is irrelevant to the rich. They could care less - if only an instinctual thought that a basic-income means the poor keep buying regularly their basic necessities as described in Maslow's hierarchy of needs (first two levels on the bottom):



Get it? The notion is damn simple. It's not magic - all it does is provide a basic platform from which to evolve. And perhaps not flounder even lower into thievery/drugs/whatever like so many do... !

 

Of course, some crafty individuals will try to make a fraud of it, employing multiple applications at different places.

Which is why the country so badly needs a national identification card given at birth (with the person's DNA-code embedded). It's a way off, but once DNA-code can be locked into an identity card, then that particular fraud-game is over (until we start cloning humans) ...

 

Try harder. We are not all dunces on this forum.

Nor are we Replicants who adore the above method.

Try to explain Social Democracies here and the dunces will accuse you of "propaganda". They cannot understand the historical evolution of Socialism (where the state owned the means of production) to Social Democracy where the means of production are owned by private enterprise but high-taxation and central governments had the duty of providing programs that benefited society as a whole. (For example, a National Healthcare System and free Post-secondary Education - which are just two of many.)

Social Democracies are countries where capitalism is the prime-motor of a market-economy, but high-taxation levels the playing-field to ensure fair and equitable distribution of incomes by means of government social-expenditures.

Just the opposite of Replicant governance in the US that seeks to lower upper-income taxation even today below the ridiculously low level at which it is. Why is that unfair? (Source here):


Get it? Of Total Income, the top 10% earn as much as the bottom 90%!

Anyone who claims that such a disposition of Earned Income is fair-'n-equitable is a prime candidate for the looney-bin ...

 

I've no doubt that plan would be economist approved!