I was referring to retirees who are about to retire or who are already retired and collecting benefits. I.e. those who are already through their working years. As far as I can tell, Murray's plan as it is does not include any carve-outs for them other than the same $10k that everyone else gets, and its not exactly as if those retirees will have the same ability to start collecting for retirement that younger folks will have, and it likely wont sit well with them to find out that the retirement support they were expecting to get from SS or Medicare will all of sudden no longer be there. Murray's plan could of course be changed to simply include a provision to reimburse everyone who paid into those entitlement programs, but doing so would make for a less favorable ROI. What you're referring to as an initial transition cost is not a transition cost at all, but an ongoing expense. Murray's claim isn't so much that that expense will go down over the years, but that he's expecting costs under our current system to go up such that the net ROI on his plan will eventually be positive. And like I pointed out, Murray himself actually admits that that expense will actually increase each year as the population increases. If you want...I can cite exactly where in his plan he says this. Now, if the aforementioned entitlement reimbursement were to be included in the plan and paid out over the first few years of implementation,...then that would be a transition cost, as you pay it for a while,...and then eventually you stop paying it. As for the $355 billion on the other hand,...according to Murray's plan that expense does not go away, and, again, as Murray himself says, will increase each year instead. Again...if you want me to cite this I will. Having said that, I'll repeat that if we are to accept Murray's reasoning regarding current cost trends, then it's fair to say his plan will eventually yield a positive ROI in the long term,...but again, this is only in comparing his plan to what we have now (or had at the time of him putting that plan together). As I mentioned before, I believe that there are alternative plans which would yield an even better ROI while having few if any of the issues that Murray's plan has. -Meta
Since we are having this discussion of alternative systems - and why would we resist automating as quickly as possible, if we can free ourselves of the drudgery associated with much of the work whose only value is that it provides paid employment - here is a an interesting article outlining all manner of proposals, from the modest to the utopian, including the previously mentioned Matthew C. Murray proposal ( he is apparently a libertarian who is keen to combine a system that limits the size of government with a UBI to replace welfare payments): http://www.aph.gov.au/About_Parliam...liamentary_Library/pubs/rp/rp1617/BasicIncome ------- Here is my own easily understood scheme - toward the utopian end, because it assumes a system without corruption, and a sufficient level of international co-operation to allow control of military force by a newly constituted UNSC. BTW, I don't see inflation as a problem in this scheme, because economic activity is managed in such a way as to never exceed available resources. "On behalf of participation by all, at above poverty-level wages How to achieve it? An outline: 1. A newly constituted IMF opens an 'account' for every nation (c.195 of them). 2. This IMF determines the nature and basic requirements of the economy of each nation, (ie the resources needed to house, clothe and feed everyone in the nation) 3. This IMF creates the funds to enable the government of each nation to institute employment-creating public programs that are consistent with the nation's resources, while ensuring not to draw on resources presently utilised by the private sector, the goal being to eliminate un/under-employment entirely, and to implement, at the least, an above poverty level wage system. People would move between the public and private sectors as the needs of the latter change, due to the usual 'creative-destruction' processes, and redundacies through competition etc, associated with private sector business cycles. [Note: Education 'consumes' mainly time - of the teacher and the student, so as private sector activity varies (over both the short and long term), this priceless enterprise (education) can be adopted by nations as required, to maintain full employment. Other useful social and environmental activities can be considered also, enabling the supply of a range of work appropriate for individuals' varying skill levels. There is always a need for intrinsically valuable local 'work']. As I mentioned, I'm assuming the resources do exist to create/supply the necessities for the world's population. Elimination of waste of resources through exiting needless harmful production and activity of all kinds (unnecessary transportation etc) would ofcourse in itself free up amazing resources (eg diversion from the military, drugs, unhealthy food, criminal activity)., and technology can undoubtably achieve the rest. [Note: The need for welfare would be eliminated when all are participating (whether in public or private enterprise) at above poverty level wages, and hence individuals would be responsble for their own standard of living, eg, by choosing not to have have famililies they cannot afford. And as I have already mentioned, Keynes has outlined the possible mechanics of managing international trade under the auspices of this new IMF (see his 1944 Bretton Woods proposals). Monetary policy (interest rates) as it applies to the government sector would be obsolete. (I'm not sure about interest rates in the private sector; this proposal is intended to explore the possibilities for a better world). Would taxation of the private sector also be rendered obsolete? What happens when the total 'debt' on the IMF account reaches say US$100 trillion? Simply turn the page and start again....inflation is not an issue since the system never draws on more resources than are available. Utopian? Nevertheless life on earth may yet be wonderful, if civilisation discovers the means to sustainable, inclusive activity for all. And there's a universe out there waiting to be explored.
Not only "why are we resisting it"...BUT...why are we not doing everything we can to automate to the max possible...EVERYTHING possible? Give ALL of the work that can be done by machines to machines, robots, and computers to do. Only allow the most productive humans to work...have work be a reward, not a punishment...a reward for competence. WHY ARE WE NOT?
Mastery of nuclear fusion - enabling supply of virtually free sustainable energy - would definitely 'clinch the deal'.
Is it because those who have become rich under the present system (a system prescribed by so-called immutable laws of classical economics, supply and demand etc) are quite content with the status quo? (after all, that's the definition of 'conservative') And therefore they are not inclined to consider alternative systems, even though such systems need not necessarily impact their own standard of living?
Those on existing plans would remain on those plans. Those in mid career would be compensated for the benefits lost upon retirement age. And of course one of the objectives is to remove the spiraling entitlement costs from continually increasing the national debt.
There is no good reason for why we should be resisting automation. In my opinion we should be embracing it. However, it would be a mistake to slide into a significantly more automated world without adapting to that change as a society, as our current social/economic structure is ill-fit to deal with the realities of such a shift. Which is why I'm glad to see conversations like these discussing alternative ideas for dealing with that. And I agree with you, given the power of automation, the superior ideas should each end in a state in which we all work significantly less on average (at least when it comes to the mindless stuff) while still maintaining a base standard of living. -Meta
Exactly. Fact is, the idea behind inventing machines, robots, computers (starting with the Industrial Revolution)...is to make life easier for humans...to set up a situation where humans do not have to do as much of the toil as was necessary before. We've achieved that goal (or come close to it) but we are turning it into a tragedy...rather than something to exalt. We have got to make the adjustment (although I favor a different approach from you) that will allow this wonderful thing that has happened...be the wondrous thing it is rather than the onerous thing it is becoming. Unfortunately, for some people, the idea of humans being unburdened is anathema.
Where in Murray's plan does it say that? Can you cite it please? Because I was under the impression that he simply removes those programs completely. If you're simply saying that it would be a good idea for that to be added to the plan, then, as I mentioned before, that's certainly a possibility,...but it will result in an increased initial cost and general reduction in the ROI. And whether that gets added or not, I still believe there are better plans. -Meta
Appendix D of his book where he talks about gov severance payments to those who switch from the old to new plans in the transition period.
So you say. It's been pointed out to you that automation has the power to render obsolete your beloved 'classical' economics. And regardless of the rate of uptake of automation, you are content with the painful process ("freetrade") of transferring wealth from formerly well-paid manufacturing jobs in the first world to low paid third world workers, while claiming that everyone benefits. And you are content that many people find themselves having to accept lower-paid, insecure, casual, freelance work as they all compete, both with another and with machines, across the globe on online platforms. And as one would expect from a pure freetrade, pure capitalist ideologue, you blame dramatic illustrations of this process (Pittsburg and Detroit in the US, and numerous similar cases in Europe, Australia, Canada), accompanied by unsustainable and relentless increases in wealth and income inequality - you blame all this on 'liberal policies'.
Thank you. It's as I thought,...he has not included such transition expenses in his cost and ROI projections. To his credit, he does at least consider them and explains the need to reimburse people for their payments into the entitlement programs. He even recognizes that this would be a sizable and problematic temporary transition cost,...one which, since not already included in his projections, would fall on top of that yearly $355 billion+. Although....after reading through appendix D, other than where he mentions a one-time or temporary reimbursement, I still cannot see where his plan would allow anyone to stay on their current Medicare or SS. In fact,...he appears to say just the opposite, "A person or family switching from the current system to the Plan gives up prospective Social Security benefits and Medicare." So I believe you are mistaken on that point, or if not, could you quote the relevant text? I request that just so that we can both be on the same page about what exactly Murray's plan is, and about how much it would be expected to cost in both the short and long term so as to make it easier to compare its merits and faults against the other plans,...which, at this point I still believe to be better than Murray's in several ways. -Meta
How does automation negate supply side economics ?? I've never claimed that everyone benefits. I've claimed that free trade is net beneficial due to comparative advantage. Those people who lose jobs must be trained for new jobs. That is part of the unemployment insurance entitlement and responsibility of the individual. I have no idea of what your last paragraph means ??
That's exactly right - anyone switching gives up the existing programs. And actually he does not consider the severance pay off to be a big expense.
Looking at your four points in reverse order: I recall one of my earliest exchanges with you on another thread: You contended that the Great Depression, the GFC, the destruction of Detroit (which happened during the 4 decades of the rise of Asia, during the many presidencies of opposing ideologies), and slow growth under Obama, were all the result of 'liberal' economic policies. Remember? You also claimed that Keynes, recognised as one of the most influential 20th century economists, was a 'fool'. Remember? You don't wish to be characterised as an ideologue? A situation obviously requiring public sector oversight, to manage the insurance entitlement across the nation, and support for displaced workers, as required. (In a system that tolerates below poverty level wages, some support will likely be vital, during the retraining process). Ofcourse the obligation is on the individual to engage this process, but the obligation is also on government to maintain the machinery necessary to enable the individual to 'begin again', without suffering descent into poverty by himself and his dependents. [The real world can be a bastard, though; consider the slow 'strangulation' of Detroit, and the effect of this on the inhabitants. They could not have known that their best option was to simply abandon the city, along with their families and friends. Result: soaring rates of crime and poverty, in a city that suffered massive depopulation, and the largest municipal bankruptcy in US history]. 'Net beneficial'? Not good enough. Trump was elected because the public don't give a damn about 'net beneficial'. Given that I'm not an expert, AND ALSO the fact that even the experts - the most talented and knowledgable practioners in the field - do not agree on the causes of observed pernicious economic processes, I will nevertheless take some time to consider this point, and get back to you (and invite others to contribute........sometimes a person outside the discipline can see the better policy, missed by experts. Take Trump, for instance, and his current stoush with lawyers (over the immigration issue) Trump: " I like the law, but sometimes these lawyers get it completely wrong, when often it's only a matter of common sense". (I believe that's a correct paraphrase of his stance).
I said that Obama's economic policies resulted in slow growth. I did not claim that Keynes was a fool. I pointed out that his economic policies do not work. There are plenty of examples of this. Every public policy enacted will do harm to some people. But the trick is to enact policies that do more harm than good. That is why Trump was elected and the D's have lost ~ 1000 governance seats in the states and federal systems. The law is clear. Trump acted within the bounds of the INA. The actions of the ninth circuit were to bring in information that was totally irrelevant to the legality of the EO. They will probably vote to maintain the stay but the SCOTUS will reverse their decision as they have in ~ 90% of the cases referred to them from the ninth circuit. The common sense part is that it makes no sense to allow non vetted persons from the seven countries identified which are not capable of providing detailed information on their citizens travelling to the US. Europe is the poster child for what can happen when that is not done. And there have been attacks in the US from citizens of those 7 countries.
Which of course would be everyone (in case there were any remaining confusion on that point). "The Plan...converts all transfer payments to a single cash payment for everyone age twenty-one and older...governments shall make no law [or] program that provides benefits to some citizens but not to others. All programs currently providing such benefits are to be terminated. The funds formerly allocated to them are to be used instead to provide every citizen with a cash grant" That is somewhat subjective either way, but here's how Murray himself describes that expense, "In considering transition costs,...all but those on the verge of actually retiring could be bought off with a lump-sum payment...Nothing in this perspective denies that the transition costs would be large and problematic. But neither should we stop considering the Plan because the prospective transition costs are obviously unmanageable." Or to paraphrase him, he's acknowleging that that initial transition cost would be "large and problematic" though not unmanageable. But of course, if I yet have opposition to his plan, it is not because I think it is unmanageable or too expensive, but again instead because I believe that some of the other plans beat it out in several areas, including net ROI and general manageability. -Meta
It would not be everyone. There would be an initial transition cost but lower costs over time which would be less than the current Medicare and Social Security system.
What do you mean by that? Are you again suggesting that there would be some people who would be able to choose to keep their SS and or Medicare as opposed to taking severance + the $10k,....because I still do not see where in his plan he states that. Again,...if you believe he does can you please quote it? Because otherwise,..."All programs currently providing such benefits are to be terminated" seems like a pretty straight forward statement. Obviously, the transition expense Murray described as "large and problematic" would be a temporary cost which would not last through the duration of the plan. That much should go without saying. Doesn't change the fact that other plans would still yield better results overall. -Meta
Of course. People currently retired and on Social Security and Medicare could not be forced off those programs. The plan as written is a starting point. It's not cut in stone. It's a proposal to end all welfare programs and replace them with cash outlays. The transition period would have to account for those individuals who would be harmed by complete termination of the existing programs. The political reality is that a choice would be offered to stay or switch with some type of severance payoff.
Looking at the question in your earlier post: The scenario: Those with capital on one side, and those with only their labour to sell, on the other. Now, if capital decides to completely automate, out of a desire to elimate morale destroying roles in the production process as well as increase supply through production efficiencies (with 24/7 operation), labour finds itself without income. So the economy has now achieved the capacity to increase supply virtually without limit (with ever more efficient machines requiring fewer skilled workers), but the economy has also largely eliminated demand (ie wages). Hence the negation of both supply side and demand side economics, in fact. Speaking of which: https://www.amazon.com/Supply-Side-Follies-Conservative-Economics-Innovation/dp/0742551075 Supply-Side Follies is a progressive political and economic challenge to the current George W. Bush policies. It debunks commonly held assumptions of conservative economic policies centered on the obsession that tax cuts led to greater productivity and prosperity. These fundamentally flawed policies are setting the United States up for a major economic downturn in the near future. The 21st century knowledge economy requires a fundamentally different approach to boosting growth than simply cutting taxes on the richest investors. The alternative is not, however, to resurrect old Keynesian, populist economics as too many Democrats hope to do. Rather, as Rob Atkinson makes clear, our long-term national welfare and prosperity depends on new economic strategy that fits the realities of the 21st century global, knowledge-based economy: innovation-based growth economics. From a review: Dr. Atkinson's Supply-Side Follies is a primer on Bush/Reagan's supply-side economics doctrine, clearly showing how, despite claims to the contrary, it's a failed economic growth strategy. No solution-less Chicken Little, the book is full of provocative alternatives that understand the distinctions between fulsome economic policy in a global setting and unfair political ideology masquerading as such ------------- yes, and you ascribed this slow growth to 'liberal' policies, as well as nominating 'liberal' policies as the cause of all the other economic catastrophes I mentioned. The public has no understanding of 'net-benefit'; if they did they would be outraged. In fact it was "AMERICA FIRST" that won the election for Trump. {Even Ted, another supply-side ideologue, rejected your net-benefit purity recently} As to Trump's current dispute with lawyers, I'm on his side! My point was - the law can be an ass, despite all those learned silks. (btw, the ability to endlessly appeal a ruling is obviously a self-serving mechanism designed by the legal profession, to ensures artificially high demand for their services. Why is the lower court even involved in the INA, a national concern). Just as classical economics can be an ass, despite all those learned supply side theories.
Perhaps, but that is not what his plan says as it is currently written. And of course tweaks could be made to the plan to address such issues, as they could be made to any plan, and Murray rightfully acknowledges the need for such tweaks, but it should be noted that adding things like that will have an affect on the overall costs/ROI. My view remains the same regardless, in that with or without the reimbursement, or even if adding an option for some to stay on SS/Medicare, Murray's current plan would still not be as beneficial as some of the others. -Meta
No plan survives a political process intact. Murray's plan is similar in spirit to many smaller plans such as school vouchers, private social security accounts, health insurance vouchers (used by federal employees), "Medicare" insurance vouchers, ... which give control to consumers and IMO result in much better individual results.
Automation results in shifts from "manufacturing" to service industries. It doesn't negate anything. Your source does not understand supply side economics. Tax rate cuts are actually a Keynesian stimulus. I attributed the slow growth of the Obama economy to the Obama economic policies. And I attributed the causes of the GR to housing policies, fed reserve monetary policies, and banking regulations. If you want to categorize all that as liberal then have at it. The general public does have an understanding of net benefit. The repeal of the 2001 steel tariff act and Smoot Hawley show that. I have no idea what Ted said.
