So, you're taking money from the rich, and giving it to people who don't work, so they can spend it, so it goes back to the rich, which makes them richer? Sounds like the mythical "perpetual motion machine" to me.
Well why are you surprised? Leftist economic concepts are based on Alchemy...turning Lead into Gold and all that Jazz.
Why not? Is there any way to support a non-arbitrary figure??? Every figure would be arbitrary...even if fixed to some economic indicator, because the process of fixing it...is arbitrary. (By the way, are we tangling ass in the Fantasy League this week?)
Could be. Perhaps it can only be a dream...and never a reality. We can certainly consider it...and think about whether or not it makes sense to at least try to attain it. I think it is worthwhile. Others have a visceral dislike of it. We can at least discuss it.
I have tried to approach this with an open mind, because I do see a trend towards technology eliminating the need for labor. And with population growth, the problem with requiring everyone to work for a living. I gave "taxi drivers" as an example; In the foreseeable future, they will be obsolete and out of work, replaced by self-driving vehicles. It seems untenable for the long term. I, however, do not believe that a 'robin hood' approach is a viable long term solution. The wealth of the rich, even if you steal it all from them, can only sustain the growing needs of the unemployed for a short time.
Hey, I like where you're going with this, by chance, have you read the following: Its important to have an idea of the final end state you're trying to reach, and I think that what you have described would be a pretty good state to be in. However, its also a good idea in my opinion to explain the in-between steps while talking about it, ...otherwise other people would have good reason to be skeptical of your ideas being anything but utopian fantasy in nature. For example...it makes little sense to be paying people not to work, when roads and bridges all over the country are falling apart, and their labor could be used to do something about it. As such, it should be stipulated, that all such infrastructure needs, as well as any other societal needs be adequately addressed beforehand, either by labor, automation, or some combination....If you explain it to people like this, I've found that they tend to be a lot more receptive. Having said all that, I actually believe its possible to achieve the end state you described, without the need for a basic income, though that isn't necessarily to say that I'm against it... -Meta
You seem like reasonable person, Hotdog. Think about that "Robin Hood" thing a bit more. This is NOT stealing from the rich to give to the not rich. This is making a plan that has the possibility of making things better rich and the not rich. If you get hung up in the notion that we are stealing from the rich...you cannot see this in any reasonable perspective. And...if the majority of the people see it that way...it will never come to fruition. We will have to find another way to deal with the problem of not NEARLY ENOUGH REASONABLE PAYING JOBS for all the people who need and want one. Got any ideas?
I had not, Meta...but I had written something very similar. And have read several recent books on the idea...as it has gained more and more respect. One thing I would mention is: There are some people who should paid to stay out of the way. They hurt production by pitching in. The best thing they can do for productivity...is "don't help." Keeping that in mind can make this idea more palatable. The notion expressed above about "stealing from the rich" is something that has to be dealt with. I suspect the next few years would be a bad time to do that. EXCELLENT THOUGHTS YOU EXPRESSED THERE, Meta.
I think the technological inroads will make it happen a lot sooner than 200 years. I suspect many people now alive will see it.
They are more likely to see the end of the United States than the US becoming anything even remotely akin to Greece.
That's good to hear. It's great to know that I'm not the only one thinking about that issue! And shout-out to [MENTION=63923]Hotdogr[/MENTION] as well. I think that if enough of us keep on talking about this, we will eventually reach critical mass as a country, such that the media and politicians begin to take this more seriously as well....and maybe then we can all come to some sort of consensus on what to actually do about it... (I'm biased in favor of my own ideas of course, but certainly open to discussing others) Perhaps you're right,....but I actually don't think that group makes up any significant portion of the population such that we should ever spend too much time focusing on them. Rather,...I believe the overwhelming majority of people in this country are more than capable of being useful to others on some level, if given the opportunity,...by which I mean, the access to resources necessary to provide some product or service, with sufficient residual value left over to support their own needs. A role typically fulfilled by 'a job'. Yes,...even the disabled or uneducated can be of net beneficial service,...if we let them,...and while perhaps not every job would be of a good fit for them, I think that if we as a country simply started off by offering more opportunities for folks, almost everyone would eventually find their niche. And if we ever truly find ourselves lacking as a country in the skills or education needed to fill the jobs we need done,...we always have the option of investing more in training and education as well. I agree! And I think there are a couple ways to do that depending on the specific reason one might consider such a thing 'stealing'.... 1. Justify the legal and moral authority of government to tax and set tax policy for its own currency, in general. Should be pretty simple given the constitution and status of government as the creator of that currency's initial value. 2. Illustrate the moral and practical efficacy of we the people having the government weight the larger portion of such a tax burden (to an extent) more towards the wealthiest among us. For instance,...you could talk about why a progressive tax constitutes a more moral distribution than a flat tax. Or even why progressive and flat tax both make more sense than a capitation tax. Personally,...I think it is perfectly fair and reasonable,...with government being charged with protecting and fostering the well-being of this country, its people, and its resources,...that the distribution of the effective tax burden used to pay for said activities, ought to be reflective of, or at least approximate, the proportion (as measured in value) of the country's land, and or natural/public resources (including government issued currency) one controls or makes use of. You could also mention the disparity between value creation and value accumulation...and or the ultimate destination of all government spending... Or,...simply explain to objectors, the practical implications of instituting a flat tax, and the negative consequences that would come along with doing such a thing, or, likewise, the negative practical consequences which would come about by simply sitting on our hands in the face of ongoing automation-induced displacement of workers. Such displacement will be a huge issue if not addressed. And while we have both posted solutions for this dilemma, my proposed solution involves taxes on the wealthy,...and so does yours,...and until such a time that some yet to be seen alternative solution is proposed, which does not involve such taxes, it would seem that those taxes, in one form or another, are inevitable,...because simply continuing to do nothing indefinitely just isn't a viable option in the long run if current trends are to continue... Thanks! I tried -Meta
We're already running experiments on this. We have neighborhoods and communities in which the majority of the population is on public assistance. Preliminary results indicate that people do not spend the the time available from not working in frequent walks, exercise, golf, tennis, or other sports.
Perhaps the people on "public assistance" are not the people most likely to use leisure time most productively. I have tons of leisure time...and I spend damn near all of it "productively"...some of which involves use of mind, like time spent in the forums. I know all sorts of people who have no need for work...who do the same. Yeah, there are people who would not use their time to any advantage...but those same people are not using it to any advantage now.
Well if 5% would use their free time "productively" and 95% won't, it doesn't sound like a great deal for society.
You have a very dim view of the percentage of people who will use leisure time in an unproductive way. But...you are entitled to feel that way, Mike. Perhaps the people you know are those kind of people. In any case, for folk like you, I guess the best position would be, "Those who have...have; screw everyone else." After all, there are only so much clothing to go around. If everyone were able to afford clothing...and everyone bought clothing...even those people who didn't work their way into the money to buy them with...people like Ivanka Trump who worked her way up from nothing and who slaves away each day might have to go naked.
I'm not arguing in favor of hoarding clothing or screwing everyone else. In fact, those accusations don't even make sense in the context of this discussion. It's not about people I know; we already have a multi-generational test case for exactly the type of society you want, and it's a fairly ugly one. If you have ideas on how to institute some sort of basic income without turning the country into a giant ghetto, I'm open to listening, but you seem to be ignoring that. I assume, you just want somebody to give you something.
Actually they do. They are born of the attitude "I've got mine, screw you." But we can leave that be for now. Nonsense. Yeah, there are people who live off the dole. They are stupid people who were too ignorant to be born to people who would motivate them to succeed and to make their own way in this world. I guess the best thing would be to let them starve and freeze...unless they are enterprising enough to steal what they need. Apparently a much better way to handle the problem actually being discussed...in your opinion. I have not ignored that. I have responded. You have a bleak view of humanity...and YOU are assuming people with enough money to live reasonably without having to earn a living (something going out of business)...will become ghetto people. They won't...or at least it is my opinion they won't. They will have more time to do the things that most people want to do, but are limited, because of the need to "earn a living." Houses will be better tended, as will lawns and gardens; children will have more time with their parents; more art, writing and other creative things will be done...and yeah, more leisure activities like golf, tennis, bowling, swimming, boating and such will be the norm. What do you have against that? Maybe I think the way I do on the issue because I know I wouldn't just fester...so I do not project it on the rest of humanity. I wonder what makes you project the opposite on humanity, Mike. I have what I need...I do not need more. I am very content...one of the most content individuals I know. But I do not go that extra step of thinking...so screw you. Okay?
Sigh. Your post is a good breakdown of the utter stupidity of minimum basic income ideas. Putting aside the all important point of where the money is coming from, supporters have no idea what the societal effects would be, and even though we have ample evidence going back generations based on our social welfare programs, They choose to ignore it because....they find themselves superior to everyone else...and they just want someone to pay them to do nothing. It's like making up a policy need to give you lottery winnings. I don't have a bleak view of humanity, but I do have a view of humanity; something that you seem to lack. Your view of human nature doesn't seem to extend beyond your interests and wants.
Your bleak view of humanity is what is distorting your impression of how things could work out, MIke. Fact is, no matter what...something like this is going to have to come along...because it no longer makes sense to pay humans a living wage to do the kinds of things humans can do. But that is a lesson some people want to hit like lightening before actually dealing with it. Okay. Your side seems to be "winning" this battle. The Kings of France in the late 18th century and Tsars of Russia in the early 19th century were winning theirs also. How'd that work out? You are just kidding here, right? It is not lacking in me...it is just not so bleak. It is not about me...it is about humanity...and the calamity it is facing right now. But...wait it out. Let's do nothing. What could possibly go wrong?
As expected, you don't get it. I think the automation issue is a serious one and deserves a better answer than a childish, "Give me money!" But I admit I don't have an answer yet. But your answer is a dumb one. Since we don't agree on human nature (although history is more on my side than yours) I don't know how we could even discuss this.
Well there is also a 'die off' solution of reducing the surplus population. Infrared flash photo Times Square, NYC https://danielteolijr.files.wordpre...-2016-infrared-flash-daniel-d-teoli-jr-mm.jpg
I get it. I suspect you do not. But we will have to agree to disagree on that. My answer has not been "give me money"...rather it has been a variation of "give THEM money." Everyone. Just allow for a basic minimum income...so that everyone can enjoy the incredible wealth of this nation. It is not childish. It MAY BE wishful...but it can be done. No, you don't. It is not a dumb one...and a variation on it will eventually be used. I think you are all wet when it comes to what history shows about human nature on this issue. We can discuss it or we can not. I started this discussion (several others are currently going on the same theme)...and you are welcome to join in the discussion or to leave it. - - - Updated - - - Actually...killing everyone who does not work and earn a living IS one solution. I think that one is a dumb solution.
