Why the world should adopt a basic income

In any exchange, only the two participants can say what they are willing to exchange. No third party has the ability to make that determination.

For instance, when a grocer and I are looking to engage in an exchange, each of us determines whether we want what the other is offering in exchange for what we are offering. No third party could possibly know what we "should" be offering.

 

Socialism - you should know, but you don't evidently - exists nowhere on earth. (Except maybe North Korea or China but in name only.)

Socialism was a political ideology that insisted that the means of production were owned by governments and not privately. That never really existed either in Western Europe or most certainly in the US.

What took its place is another means of sharing wealth - which will also bore you. It is called a Social Democracy, and here's the definition:

The emphasis is not on everybody earning the same amount as Socialism insisted, but around another Economic Concept called Income Disparity. That is, when some people earn and own too much.

And how do economists measure Income Disparity?

One of the easiest ways is by something called the Gini-Coefficient - and I wont bore you with how that works. Suffice it that I show merely the historical evolution of the coefficient for major economies here:


OH WOW! Look where the US in on that chart. Right up there with CHINA in terms of Income Disparity and the most unfair of any western nation on earth!

 

By what objective measure do you determine whether or not people are giving someone "too much"?

 

Nope. The position of most capitalists is that a minimum wage is needed. Whilst I personally do not support capitalism, they have a point. Supply and demand is on their side. It is not supportive of the hypocrisy of fake libertarianism.

 

Now I'm not sure I understand you position. Are you saying that you DON'T support the use of violence to force employers to pay a minimum wage?

 

Your question makes no sense. The minimum wage creates exchange opportunity. Are you saying that such outcomes are violent and therefore wrong?

 

No I'm not saying that.

Maybe my question was unclear. Do you support the use of violence to force employers to pay a minimum wage?

 

Again, your question doesn't make sense. The problem is your use of violence. We know that the minimum wage creates exchange opportunity. If the minimum wage is violence, then you are arguing that violence creates opportunity.

 

Dodge duly noted.

 

Violence often does create opportunity, it is just immoral.

 

My use of violence? Can you please elaborate on my use of violence?

 

You want to destroy economic exchange. The whole point is that you have adopted a hypocritical position.

 

No I don't. I want people to be free to engage in economic exchanges to which both partners mutually agree. Unlike yourself, I don't recommend policies that initiate violence against peaceful people.

 

I don't like it. Telling fake libertarians that they support coercion is akin to kicking a kitten. However, the evidence can't be ignored. You want to destroy exchange.

 

Can you quote me where I said that I want to destroy exchange?

 

You want to eliminate the minimum wage. That destroys exchange, by definition.

 

Yes, I want to eliminate the violent imposition of a minimum wage. That enhances exchange, by definition. I disagree with your position that violence is a justifiable means to achieve one's ends. I prefer peaceful solutions.

 

Unless you reject supply and demand, you are demanding the destruction of mutually beneficial exchange. Failure to understand the labour market is ultimately the biggest weakness of the Austrian School.

 

Um, I'm not sure if you're aware but YOU'RE the one wishing to use violence to change people's economic choices. I'm the one advocating that we leave people alone to make their own decisions.

 

I'm not in Australia, I'm in Pennsylvania.

 

Your geographic error is perhaps as large as your misapplication of supply and demand?

 

Your misapplication of supply and demand involves clubs and guns to make people do what you want.

 

The theory and the evidence isn't in dispute. As mentioned, supply and demand automatically concludes that your position is hypocritical. That it's supported by empirical evidence is also unsurprising.

 

Peace is hypocritical.
War is peace.
Freedom is slavery.
Ignorance is strength.

 

Imagine actually using economics to support your position? You could derive robust conclusion free of hypocrisy.