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

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

Excerpt:

We are nation that feels just giving money away is somehow backward or even useless. People are people, and if they don-wanna-werk, then they wont regardless of the money shoveled at them for free.

Perhaps that's a vestige of two-centuries ago when working had a mystical almost religious air about it. Most of America was considered a "haven free from religious persecution", which was rampant at the time in Europe. (The16th century.)

Of course, we've evolved (supposedly) since then! We no longer fight over Religion but the one over political persuasion is nonetheless vigorous. At least in breath, if not in bullets.

Which simply goes to show how, as human beings, we have evolved. We no longer kill one another, but we do turn a blind-eye to the 46 million of our population who live below the Poverty Threshold. Not quite the same as slaughtering people in battle though, is it.

A MIT study of the matter (see here) did come up with the basic facts, however. Which are these:

So, what! That's the way the cookie crumbles, some will say.

Of course, those who do think in that manner are the ones who are typically earning far better incomes - so why, indeed, should they care that a Basic Income can extend livespans?

They have far more important matters to concern them. Like today's DJ-value ...

 

"All those free euros have driven him to work harder than ever"

I'd go for a market socialist approach where a one off payment, worth the same expense as acquiring a PhD, is provided. That will further generate choice and encourage creativity. The notion that 'welfare is bad' comes from a labour supply approach which really isn't fit for purpose. First, it assumes work is neutral (i.e. merely the means to exchange one good for another, leisure for consumption). A bogus assumption. Second, it can't even be used to suggest welfare generates work disincentive effects. Its not welfare that generates them, its actually a lack of generosity (given the creation of 'corner solutions' where effective marginal rates of tax approach of exceed 100% due to interaction of benefit withdrawal and tax increase)

 

Well, that's a riddle if I've ever read one.

You see, a "socialist" approach means that all the means of production are owned by the government. Surprise, surprise! And the only place where that still exists is North Korea.

Europe introduced, more than fifty-years ago, what is known as Social Democracies. That is, market-economies that are based upon capitalism (that is the private ownership of the means of production). But, still, with a difference. A BIG DIFFERENCE.

What Social Democracies do is understand that some areas of public necessity are not best managed/delivered by "free-market principles". Meaning that service is never guarantied ipso-facto at an affordable costs. Healthcare and Education are felt in such democracies to be of an absolutely primary concern. So, they are assured by national governments and subsidized by means of taxation.

And the cost is substantial. When seen in such a perspective, the differences in cost per capita can be staggering (from here):

Your total healthcare costs in the US are 70% more expensive (per unit of GDP) than in the UK.

Which is, for instance, why you in the US are paying twice as much per capita for health-insurance as I am (here in France) with a National Health System. Yes, the American healthcare system is pretty damn good. But also extremely costly given the millions of Americans who literally and physically pass right through the net.

Come any real sickness, and those without coverage are in free-fall. Which is why European Healthcare Systems, upon serious investigation, are noted better. (See here.) All you need do in Europe to benefit from National Healthcare Services throughout your life is, uh,
to be born ...

 

And ...?


They rely on us taxpayers for protection

 

No it doesn't. The correct definition of socialism refers to worker ownership.

Not really a big difference. For example, empirical analysis sometimes finds it difficult to distinguish between social democracy and liberal democracy countries. Social democracy isn't a bad thing. It certainly means lower poverty rates. However, it maintains exploitation.

Actually they don't. Was Britain a social democracy when it heavily invested in its NHS under Tony Blair, reducing waiting lists and ensuring rapid reaction by GPs? Of course not. Delivering public goods goes beyond the social democracy tag, which tends to focus more more on reducing overall inequalities.

I'm English. Not a good idea to refer to Britain at the moment either. Under May we are seeing ratcheting up of privatisation. Neo-liberalism for you!

 

you mean chronic 11% unemployment and per capita income 65% of USA's? You mean what Krugman calls Eurosclerous? You mean utter dependence on USA for defense and new inventions to keep them in the current century?

 

What's the poverty rate in Western Europe compared to the US's?

 

For someone who claims to be an economist you sure seem to accept any fast and loose methodology to your studies that you declare "really can work." The study was for 2000 unemployed people. I'm sure it worked great for them, but a valid study would include unemployed, employed, in all different economic and class levels. Just giving money to people who are broke will of course be a success to those getting it.

 

Why would you, for example, refer to the upper classes where a basic income guarantee has no practical relevance?

 

Isn't this study of a basic income guarantee? That doesn't just go to unemployed people, it goes to everyone. Otherwise this is just a study of giving unemployed people more money.

 

So you think a payment of the basic income to someone rich is going to be significant? Nope! The significance is avoiding means testing.

 

So this wasn't a basic income study at all, it was just giving more welfare to people already on welfare.

 

You miss the point. A rich man won't have any significant impact from a basic income guarantee. The impact is derived from having a system that eliminates means testing. Its that which unleashes more creativity. The focus, to illustrate that, will still be on the lower income deciles. Its showing their changing behaviour which illustrates success, with zero to do with the 'carry on as usual' rich

 

Well did the study document an unleashing of creativity? I must have missed that.

 

Which "socialists" the world over have taken to means price-control and distribution by the government - whether production is private-farming or industrial or anywhere in-between.

And, of course, yet another "great idea" that did not meet the specification. So, it has been dumped just about everywhere (with the exception of North Korea).

Just to prove a point that social-democracies have learned. Governments are best at running key-programs of a general-nature that market-economies get wrong (because the participants of which concentrate of profit objectives and not societal objectives).

Principally, it means that both Education and Healthcare remain in the controlling hands of the government - in order to assure that availability is not in any way constrained by "market forces".

Social-democracies apply themselves to the realm of public-services - generally defined as those services that remain difficult to generate/distribute to the wider-public, so the government assumes their distribution. Housing is another such example in many social-democrat countries.

(Frankly, refer to Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs to see that social-services apply mostly to the base of the triangle - which is necessary to support the entire structure. Which is why such a model is employed.)

Of the above two mentioned Primary Objectives of a Social Democracy (Education and Healthcare), the private-schooling Education is the reason that far fewer young adults graduate from Tertiary Education in the US than in Europe. (It cost me about $1K a year to send one child to MedSchool here in France. And when he got out, he was obliged to accept the tariffs set by the French Department of HealthCare. His salary today is only half that of an American GP - but it is more than enough to raise a family and do well.)

Evidently you do not see the difference between stated intent and the execution of stated intents. Besides, if you want to see really badly run National Healthcare Systems, move to Greece.

All healthcare systems in Europe have different appreciations of their effectiveness. Nonetheless, the studies seem to be fairly consistent. I advise that you read their results:
*They started in 1990 by the WHO study, the results of which are here,
*They have continued with more pertinent results by the Commonwealth Fund ranking here.

Nonetheless, the UK has one of the finest HC-systems (according to the Commonwealth Fund rankings), and as a Brit you should consider yourself lucky.

Instead of pissing into your tea ... !

 

Yeah, and so what?!?

All social-democracies depend upon taxation as a source of revenue!

And, as regards "you taxpayers" in America - consider yourselves VERY LUCKY to have one of the least onerous tax-impositions of any country on earth:


The US has grossly unfair Tertiary Education and Health Care, both due to inherently high costs because they are privately run. But your total tax-burden is also amongst the lowest in the world!

So, just what are you complaining about? Taxation? (Gimme a break ...!)

 

Yet we pay for the socialist utopias of the west , so are you telling us they suck at managing money? I never heard of someone from Denmark living to 200 years old or inventing a flux capacitor , so what do they get out of all those taxes?

 

No it hasn't. The political economic definition of socialism is intact. The reference to government is more likely to refer to state capitalism. The only debate is in the form of socialism, from anarchist analysis to post-Hayekian market socialism.

You're exaggerating what we mean by social democracy. There isn't a different way of doing things, with governments somehow having greater knowledge over the characteristics of market failure. It essentially can be restricted to one aspect: the poverty rate where the reproduction of capitalist profit is stable.

I've already proven that to be wrong. Britain maintained government provision of education and healthcare, despite- for example- introducing monetarism in the late 70s. There are of course advantages to that, such as improved economic planning and exploitation of economies of scale. However, none of that is specific to social democracy. Indeed, it can be understood within neoclassical economics by simply referring to concepts such as 'merit goods'.

Again I can't agree. One doesn't have to be a social democrat to appreciate failures in housing markets. Its just as pertinent to liberal democracy. The real impact of social democracy on housing is again through poverty reduction effects (where using home ownership for self-insurance is less pertinent).

Britain saw significant growth in Higher Education at the same time as imposing aggressive neo-liberal economic policies. There's no clear cut use of education to distinguish social democracy and liberal democracy. Indeed, tertiary education can actually be destructive for agendas such as social mobility. Britain also saw reductions in social mobility as higher education attendance became more frequent (arguably because of social and cultural capital issues)

I see how your focus on public good delivery is not generating any sound political economic conclusions. The Blair example neatly advertised it.

Not surprisingly Liberals are in favour of protecting the NHS (although the more market orientated ones that joined the previous coalition government did enable the selling of NHS resources). It is also true that it is very much under threat, with the Conservatives- for ideological reasons- privatizing services. However, none of that can be used to justify your argument. We simply have public good delivery and agreement among the left (many of whom aren't social democrats) that the resource should be protected.

 

Hayek this:
*Our exchange has been rather too much or an intellectual debate that simply confuses matters.
*I have been responding to Yanks on this forum who haven't the faintest notion of what is a Social Democracy. I tried to keep it simple.
*Your rebuttal thus makes a muddle everything.

Moving right along ...

*"State capitalism" - you have a most fertile imagination!

 

There are a lot of things you've never heard of. Stick around.

Factual evidence: People in Europe live an average 4 years more than Americans, and Americans pay twice to three times as much per capita for National Health Care than Europeans.

Put those facts into your pipe and smoke them ...

 

You think you should be able to corrupt political economy because of comprehension problems of Americans? Sorry, no dice.

Again with your innocence of political economy.

 

Prove those "facts" and big deal 4 years longer? They live 80 years more longer with the US military having their back.

 

I'm the innocent in our exchanges? Wow!!!

Moving right along ...

 

Borrrrrinnnnnggggg! More useless prattle!

I've put up the graphic-data already on this thread. (It's here - Yanks in the US pay twice as much per capita for healthcare as most Europeans, and we live 4 years less.)

Try participating from start-to-finish. The is (supposedly) a Debate Forum, not an effing Message Board for idiots!

Now, like the other nerds on this forum, accuse me of publishing propaganda ... !