Progarchives.com has always (since 2002) relied on banners ads to cover web hosting fees and all. Please consider supporting us by giving monthly PayPal donations and help keep PA fast-loading and ad-free forever.
It would eliminate every bureaucracy with their staffs that have shop around prices, review applicants, blah blah blah, and it would slash the IRS staff needed since we would have a flat tax. Issuing the UBI doesn't really take much.
Quite. Edit: NEVERMIND. I see my mistake. Reading your response to Pat correctly now, yes UBI would be a drastic simplification.
I don't know how much additional "bureaucracy" is required to lop a lump sum off one's taxes.
Not a lot, but certainly more than just lowering their taxes to begin with. Considering there are 300 million people in the US (and 80 million in Germany, which is my vantage point), just a tiny little bit of additional bureaucracy per person can result in a lot of bloat overall. I'm not saying this to argue against UBI, I'm merely saying that it would be more effective with a cutoff. Let's say you want everyone to have a basic income of 1,000$ per month. What makes more sense? Giving everyone 1,000$, even those who make 10,000$ on their own? Or supplementing only the income of those who make less than 1,000$ so that they reach a certain minimum level?
Padraic wrote:
Plus, one of the selling points of UBI is to eliminate bureaucracies currently in place for the multitude of welfare programs.
Sure. All I'm saying is that if you're going to eliminate bureaucracy, eliminate as much of it as possible.
TGM: Orb wrote:
Benefits dichotomy: there's an issue you get a
mixture of situations where low-paid employment would exclude you from
targeted benefits to basically no net gain, which is the often
exaggerated welfare trap (some people reckon it's the welfare system at
fault, myself I think it's the job pay not being adequate without
welfare support). By having a UBI, you don't have any situation where
someone by improving their income gets disqualified from benefits they
need to supplement that income.
That doesn't happen with a cutoff either. To refer back to my
earlier example, if you have a cutoff at 1,000$, that ensures that
everyone has an income of at least 1,000$ per month. If you switch from a
low-paying job to a higher-paying job, the worst that could happen to
you is that it doesn't improve your effective income at all, but you
will never be worse off.
TGM: Orb wrote:
Terms of employment: Currently
we've got an odd mixture in the UK at least of the government
essentially making up the slack from supermarkets employing people at
less than a living wage. Similarly, benefit providers have both promised
jobs for people doing unpaid work (G4S at the Olympics being the most
egregious example) and threatened people with withdrawing their benefits
if they refuse to work unpaid for a supermarket. Currently some
exploitative employers are exploiting the conditionality of benefits to
basically bully people into doing things for terrible terms and no real
advantage - take away that conditionality, and you offer that thing.
Discussing benefits: Discussion of benefits here is largely based on
scandal stories which are misreported by the Mail, the Times and the Sun
and other such scumbags with an agenda of making the poor suffer for
their own amusement. They take a fringe case where someone receives a
silly amount of housing benefit a year because they live in London and
landlords are sharking the rent, or where someone receives a lot of
child support because they have a lot of children and we don't want to
let them starve. These fringe cases get reported as if they're
representative of a culture of benefit fraud, or of overly generous
benefits, while the reality of how much people on benefits get is kept
extremely nebulous by the range of different sources. It becomes very
hard to have an informed discussion just because different people get
wildly different benefits depending on a huge number of factors, and
because certain sections of the media deliberately and consistently
misrepresent them.
I thought a UBI, regardless of whether or not it has a cutoff, would
do away with "benefits" entirely in exchange for a sum of money?
Granted, I might be biased against the idea of UBI without a cutoff because of the situation in which I was first exposed to the idea. A party in Germany, called the Pirate Party, has recently added UBI to its party program. But not in order to simplify the welfare system, no, they want to give money to everyone on top of what's already happening. And to finance this, they want to drastically raise taxes. That immediately appeared to me as pointless and ineffective redistribution of wealth. If you want to give the poor more money, just give the poor more money.
It seems the UBI, in some form, is decently popular here. Or at least accepted as better than the welfare state, since I know many of ya here would probably want most welfare to be eliminated entirely.
Long story short: A job guarantee (at the minimum wage) for anyone who chooses. Idea being it will provide jobs for anyone who wants, kinda like a UBI I guess but work is involved instead of simply given out. It could be used to do things the private sector does not, at the minimum wage it would not cause incentive to stay there over choosing private sector work, would be run as a private sector job aka if you dont meet expectation you get fired, and supposedly (I need to read more about this) creates a natural inflation buffer and could even smoothen out that business cycle...
....jobs for anyone, without market distortion, without causing inflation(!?) which could let us reduce the welfare blanket mess. You know what they say about too good to be true!! It's an interesting idea though, I just have some issues with in reality. Works on paper pretty swell, but keeping at minimum wage? If this is run by government we all know the incentive to raise wages...same with "honest work" in reality will people get fired or retained even if they schlep around? The author states somewhere it should be work not done in the private sector, which makes sense (just wanna be an alternative and not compete) but is there enough??
I think it'd have to be at minimum, and no benefits. Otherwise incentives could become perversed and the claim is to be just a "guarantee" of a job if needed. I think too much pay and benefits would obviously become competition for the private sector.
I thought a UBI, regardless of whether or not it has a cutoff, would
do away with "benefits" entirely in exchange for a sum of money?
That is the usual point made for it yes.
Granted, I might be biased against the idea of UBI without a cutoff because of the situation in which I was first exposed to the idea. A party in Germany, called the Pirate Party, has recently added UBI to its party program. But not in order to simplify the welfare system, no, they want to give money to everyone on top of what's already happening. And to finance this, they want to drastically raise taxes. That immediately appeared to me as pointless and ineffective redistribution of wealth. If you want to give the poor more money, just give the poor more money.
You are 100% right. Friedman suggested the idea as a replacement but NOT on top of already existing welfare, and when the idea of it was floated he around he actually rallied against it, since it was an addition not the replacement he called for. Totally true, that would just make the welfare mess worse, by default, and would be pretty wasteful redistribtuion. It needs to be a total replacement, at least to a great extent, but that is scary to people it seems. Even if the idea makes sense, we are all conservative in nature ya know?? It can be tough for the masses to embrace a pretty major change. Even though it'd be more direct, efficient and cheaper the idea of "ending welfare" still causes a bad gut reaction I think.
That doesn't happen with a cutoff either. To refer back to my
earlier example, if you have a cutoff at 1,000$, that ensures that
everyone has an income of at least 1,000$ per month. If you switch from a
low-paying job to a higher-paying job, the worst that could happen to
you is that it doesn't improve your effective income at all, but you
will never be worse off.
[QUOTE=TGM: Orb alt=Originally posted by TGM: Orb alt=Originally posted by HarbouringTheSoul
That doesn't happen with a cutoff either. To refer back to my
earlier example, if you have a cutoff at 1,000$, that ensures that
everyone has an income of at least 1,000$ per month. If you switch from a
low-paying job to a higher-paying job, the worst that could happen to
you is that it doesn't improve your effective income at all, but you
will never be worse off.
Snip
That doesn't happen with a cutoff either. To refer back to my
earlier example, if you have a cutoff at 1,000$, that ensures that
everyone has an income of at least 1,000$ per month. If you switch from a
low-paying job to a higher-paying job, the worst that could happen to
you is that it doesn't improve your effective income at all, but you
will never be worse off.
[QUOTE=TGM: Orb wrote:
Snip
I thought a UBI, regardless of whether or not it has a cutoff, would
do away with benefits entirely in exchange for a sum of money?
Granted, I might be biased against the idea of UBI without a cutoff because of the situation in which I was first exposed to the idea. A party in Germany, called the Pirate Party, has recently added UBI to its party program. But not in order to simplify the welfare system, no, they want to give money to everyone on top of what's already happening. And to finance this, they want to drastically raise taxes. That immediately appeared to me as pointless and ineffective redistribution of wealth. If you want to give the poor more money, just give the poor more money.
[/QUOTE wrote:
Well, on the first one, cutoffs may result in someone having a choice between working a lot more hours for no net gain or just not working. Similarly, if you qualify for a variety of benefits, you may actually find a situation where going to work loses you enough varieties of welfare that it becomes counter-productive. I'm not sure I really buy that this is the problem with welfare systems at the moment rather than that there aren't enough good jobs but I think that's OK. On the second point, UBI doesn't have to do away with all benefits but if it does away with most of the conditional stuff we have now, it does mean that *everyone* knows how much someone on benefits is actually on a year. At the moment, it's all so convoluted it's very hard to have a reasonable discussion.
I'd quite like a UBI and some elements of a universal welfare state (so, education, healthcare, child benefit). Alternatively, though, I'd like a communist state focussed on attempting to proliferate leisure time and better quality of life rather than GDP, so I don't think anyone in the thread's that aligned to me
@Lehto:
I think Labour here are angling on a plan where they're going to attempt to offer everyone some sort of job within two years instead of the Conservative attempt to make benefits too difficult to live on so people inspire themselves into making new jobs. It's a nice change.
I have reservations about the implementation you propose but I think that's just because I think gov't's got an obligation to be a good employer so pay a living wage rather than minimum wage etc etc. Also I generally find the public sector for all its sins tends to do things more cheaply, more accountably and better than the private sector when it's not faffed around with too much by political parties (case in point, BBC) so I'm not too fussed about it conflicting with them.
Well, on the first one, cutoffs may result in someone having a choice between working a lot more hours for no net gain or just not working. Similarly, if you qualify for a variety of benefits, you may actually find a situation where going to work loses you enough varieties of welfare that it becomes counter-productive. I'm not sure I really buy that this is the problem with welfare systems at the moment rather than that there aren't enough good jobs but I think that's OK. On the second point, UBI doesn't have to do away with all benefits but if it does away with most of the conditional stuff we have now, it does mean that *everyone* knows how much someone on benefits is actually on a year. At the moment, it's all so convoluted it's very hard to have a reasonable discussion.
I'd quite like a UBI and some elements of a universal welfare state (so, education, healthcare, child benefit). Alternatively, though, I'd like a communist state focussed on attempting to proliferate leisure time and better quality of life rather than GDP, so I don't think anyone in the thread's that aligned to me
@Lehto:
I think Labour here are angling on a plan where they're going to attempt to offer everyone some sort of job within two years instead of the Conservative attempt to make benefits too difficult to live on so people inspire themselves into making new jobs. It's a nice change.
I have reservations about the implementation you propose but I think that's just because I think gov't's got an obligation to be a good employer so pay a living wage rather than minimum wage etc etc. Also I generally find the public sector for all its sins tends to do things more cheaply, more accountably and better than the private sector when it's not faffed around with too much by political parties (case in point, BBC) so I'm not too fussed about it conflicting with them.
That's fair, and I can't debate it since that is simply your opinion. Obviously you are skeptical of the private sector/markets and my guess while you say "not fussed" you probably really want them to conflict with the private sector. Which is fine, I used to feel the same so I understand the notion fully.
That being said, it's not like ALL government jobs would be minimum wage. There are "non JG" government jobs that still would exist, as they do now, that pay what they do. The JG would be a literal safety net that either A) helps you when needed while searching for private sector work, or B) exist for the "chronic unemployed' that already are on assistance.
Needless to say I disagree with the last part, obviously there's variation but just from life experience I've seen no different between private and public sector effectiveness, and in terms of doing a job often public sector is worse. I think it's a pretty intriguing idea to be a true safety net in a market economy (long as strict standards are followed) but if you simply want less private more public, well that's that then Seems you have no real issue with the proposal per se, just that it's not government doing enough?
Joined: October 21 2007
Location: n/a
Status: Offline
Points: 8052
Posted: May 23 2013 at 20:37
JJLehto wrote:
That's fair, and I can't debate it since that is simply your opinion. Obviously you are skeptical of the private sector/markets and my guess while you say "not fussed" you probably really want them to conflict with the private sector. Which is fine, I used to feel the same so I understand the notion fully.
That being said, it's not like ALL government jobs would be minimum wage. There are "non JG" government jobs that still would exist, as they do now, that pay what they do. The JG would be a literal safety net that either A) helps you when needed while searching for private sector work, or B) exist for the "chronic unemployed' that already are on assistance.
Needless to say I disagree with the last part, obviously there's variation but just from life experience I've seen no different between private and public sector effectiveness, and in terms of doing a job often public sector is worse. I think it's a pretty intriguing idea to be a true safety net in a market economy (long as strict standards are followed) but if you simply want less private more public, well that's that then Seems you have no real issue with the proposal per se, just that it's not government doing enough?
Yep yep - no issue with the proposal per se and I think that sort of
safety net (whether UBI or JG) in a market economy is a very interesting way forward for the
economic right and the more moderate left for very different reasons. My only real reservation is that I feel pretty
strongly that a government should offer a living wage rather than the bare
legal minimum wage, if only because there's a real disparity between the
two here at the moment and you're only going to have to make up the
difference with in-work benefits anyway unless you want to have a government systematically exploiting underpaid jobs.
(Well, I don't necessarily want a conflict between the two, rather I think the gov't should provide services on the criteria of them being essential or useful, being able to do them well and make them publicly available rather than just filling in for whatever the private sector doesn't find interesting - there were complaints before the whole Newscorp scandal broke here t'other year that the BBC news site was making it uncompetitively difficult for Murdoch to monetise The Times Online... it's probably true that it does but I don't think that's a good argument against having the BBC news operate in that area).
But yeah, like you guys I'm kind of drifting so far away from mainstream politics that I'm sort of trying to find ways for my own ideology to get snuck into what we have at the moment. I think the UBI and JG are both very interesting ways of doing that.
A yearish ago I went full out libertarian: end the fed, gold standard, total free market very tiny government reduce welfare etc now I'm kinda seeing that all schools of thought seemed bias and not totally right, and Im trying to find this middle ground of merging many schools of thought with an overall tilt to limited government, because its naturally corrupt and a tool for the rich, despite any intentions.
It's true, I really love these ideas that kinda take a middle ground (and make sense) there is just too much clinging to ideology on both sides.
Joined: September 03 2006
Location: .
Status: Offline
Points: 9869
Posted: May 24 2013 at 23:31
JJLehto wrote:
It's true, I really love these ideas that kinda take a middle ground (and make sense) there is just too much clinging to ideology on both sides.
lol, I have been of this persuasion for quite some time and I don't think I will change. Ok, the right wing part of me gets agitated when I see lazy, overfed employees or govt servants shirking work and feeling entitled to do so, while the left winger comes forth when the power games of the super rich get really disgusting and cynical and deprive livelihoods in the pursuit of super profits. So that's what it is - there is no one size fits all solution, it has to be tailored to the situation at hand. However, I think leaders should have a long term outlook of what they'd like to shape the nation as and in that sense, some amount of ideological slant is inescapable. Of course, that's all in theory - politicians just want to get rich - in the short run as well as the long run - anyway and they, not us, shape the policies with which we have to live.
Well, I CLAIMED to have been in that persuasion for years, but really I was kidding myself. I was very stuck to an ideology and unwilling to bend. In recent weeks I've been reading (and supporting) many things put forward by some post-Keynesians and I dont agree with all their stuff, but some great points are made. While I still think the core of the Austrian theory is true...now THAT is putting ideology aside!
Actually in a crazy ass way, some of the stuff they advocate (the post Keynsians) IMO could bring us to a more natural state of free market/limited government, while providing the social needs. Because that's the balance issue, how to limit government, which is needed for reasons you point out, but provide for the needy that is also essential. IMO at least...Ive just pissed off more libertarians Indeed this all is theory, Friedman said it best: Politicians are businessmen. They are in positions of power to better themselves, and thus it's near impossible to just convince em to do what's right, we have to make it profitable for them.
Which sucks since few "true" answers do that. We can dream though!
Joined: September 03 2006
Location: .
Status: Offline
Points: 9869
Posted: May 25 2013 at 03:50
There was no option after the war, really, but to continue with the Keynesian big govt model for some time until people had finished re-constructing and could stand on their own two feet again. That is where govt can play a positive role *gulp* - reconstruction after war or natural disaster, security, etc. When it came to withdrawing the Keynesian stimulus and making the economy more productive, not all govts could manage the transition. Some like Britain probably left it for too late. Whereas Germany could move into hi-tech and retain a good deal of their welfare state at the same time. It also boils down to the people, economic policies by themselves can't change their basic nature, I guess. Why didn't the welfare state make Germany lazy and their cars horrible. My father bought an electric iron on a trip to Germany in the late 80s and I think we used it for 20 years without any problems. Same with the oven he bought from the same country. As for toasters, we have bought two of local brands in the last two-three years and they ran into problems quickly. I think a limited govt is good for lazy, complacent people as it might force them into a shape up or ship out fix. A welfare state for such people is like writing out a blank cheque.
Sure, there was a necessity for government to help re build the countries after WWII but needless to say that's a role none of us should want to see often...especially these days where state violence has declined so much. But yeah, makes sense government should help rebuild the ruined countries, but Keynesian thinking did not need to be the plan for the upcoming decades.
That's a bit beside the point though, I've really been thinking about this article: http://neweconomicperspectives.org/2011/07/government-budget-deficits-are-largely.html As it points out, the Obama deficits have been largely natural, with the bailouts and stimulus playing a small role. It (and other articles by them) claim that most deficits are natural in fact. It makes an interesting point that welfare and taxes play the role of an "automatic stabilizer" he even says that is what prevented a depression, not the stimulus or bailouts.
So if you wanna believe this, there could be a need for welfare besides the obvious... As for what you said, again nothing is black and white. Lefties think 50 million Americans are a razors edge away from third world poverty and etc etc Righties think they all are welfare bums that need to be kicked off to get a job. I just don't believe there are enough jobs out there honestly, and while many abuse welfare many use it for real help. It's why I like the idea of a guaranteed income type idea. Can provide direct relief but actually would be more free market...since government wouldn't tinker with welfare, taxes, amounts and etc Just leave it be and it will be the natural stabilizer in downturns!
Joined: September 03 2006
Location: .
Status: Offline
Points: 9869
Posted: May 26 2013 at 19:30
We are trying to move to something similar to a UBI too. It's called direct cash transfer and that's why personal information of millions of people is being mapped into one gigantic computer system which will monitor disbursal of this benefit to their bank accounts. The arguments against it are indeed that somebody may receive the cash and burn the entire thing on booze, if he may so desire, but the cost, alternatively of administering welfare is proving to be very expensive and it is also very inefficient and ineffective in reaching its targeted beneficiaries.
That was an interesting article and the last sentence is important: pursuing both full employment and price stability. In practical application of Keynesian economics, price stability was pursued at full employment level. Full employment level was either never attained or lasted for too short a duration, pushing economies into the double whammy of high unemployment and high inflation. The graphs bring out well why there is no sign of a hyperinflation monster yet in the US. People are actually putting back money in the bank (who would have thunk) and consumption growth has flatlined. This seems to be a global paradox.
I think we touched upon this earlier in this thread too - you have people and enterprises sitting on cash piles, preferring to wait and watch rather than consume. Even China is slowing down (though its 'slowing down' growth rates are still incredible). The implication is that the crisis is in the mind and the lack of world leadership with conviction is unable to assure consumers that everything will turn out right and they should just step out and binge. On the other hand, insinuations that the 2008 crisis was born from excess consumption seems to have petrified consumers into paralysis. There is so alternative in such a situation to Keynesian stimulus imo as, again, only the Govt can change the mood favourably in such a situation.
To that extent, I don't believe the course Obama seems to be pursuing is totally off but what looks from here like a logjam between Democrats and Republicans is worrying (and we have a similar parliament logjam too, don't worry). This to me raises questions about the feasibility of democratic set ups if its representatives are going to eternally disagree just for the sake of it.
Joined: May 29 2006
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 8368
Posted: May 27 2013 at 20:21
I disappear for just a couple of months and I come back to find the libertarians supporting giving a $10,000 check to every poor person in America? Obviously, this place is falling apart in my absence.
Teo is right in his concerns. It creates a perverse incentive for people to remain poor enough to get the free money, it would be inflationary and cause a lifting of the poverty line and would not give people any permanent way to better their situation.
The poverty line in America is a joke anyway. It's completely arbitrary and drifts up just so the Democrats can shriek about how many people are poor and need welfare. You can live quite comfortably for well under the poverty line if you don't blow all your money on needless extravagances. Nobody is starving to death in America. There's enough free food in any major city to ensure that. In any other country, in any other time in history, the current complaints that the "poor" are too fat would have aroused blank stares of confusion or riotous laughter.
Well it's been mainly the lefties and myself who probably isn't really a libertarian these days, least not the mainstream US way. We did ponder inflation but we don't have economic degrees good sir. Why would it be inflationary? If all welfare was replaced with direct checks, in the amount they already are given why would it be much different from how things are now?
As for perverse incentives, well they already exist. You can choose to stay below the poverty line to receive welfare now, how would it be different?
But yeah, it is true that poverty in the US is a bit of a stretch, especially in a global sense.
edit: Speaking of which I'm pursuing a Masters in Economics hopefully by this fall so we'll see if I get any better informed
We are trying to move to something similar to a UBI too. It's called direct cash transfer and that's why personal information of millions of people is being mapped into one gigantic computer system which will monitor disbursal of this benefit to their bank accounts. The arguments against it are indeed that somebody may receive the cash and burn the entire thing on booze, if he may so desire, but the cost, alternatively of administering welfare is proving to be very expensive and it is also very inefficient and ineffective in reaching its targeted beneficiaries.
That was an interesting article and the last sentence is important: pursuing both full employment and price stability. In practical application of Keynesian economics, price stability was pursued at full employment level. Full employment level was either never attained or lasted for too short a duration, pushing economies into the double whammy of high unemployment and high inflation. The graphs bring out well why there is no sign of a hyperinflation monster yet in the US. People are actually putting back money in the bank (who would have thunk) and consumption growth has flatlined. This seems to be a global paradox.
I think we touched upon this earlier in this thread too - you have people and enterprises sitting on cash piles, preferring to wait and watch rather than consume. Even China is slowing down (though its 'slowing down' growth rates are still incredible). The implication is that the crisis is in the mind and the lack of world leadership with conviction is unable to assure consumers that everything will turn out right and they should just step out and binge. On the other hand, insinuations that the 2008 crisis was born from excess consumption seems to have petrified consumers into paralysis. There is so alternative in such a situation to Keynesian stimulus imo as, again, only the Govt can change the mood favourably in such a situation.
To that extent, I don't believe the course Obama seems to be pursuing is totally off but what looks from here like a logjam between Democrats and Republicans is worrying (and we have a similar parliament logjam too, don't worry). This to me raises questions about the feasibility of democratic set ups if its representatives are going to eternally disagree just for the sake of it.
Whew, much to say in there. Yeah, that blog makes some good points, for example the "automatic stabilizer". Which as he said "The automatic stabilizer–and not the bailouts or stimulus—is the main
reason why the economy did not go into a freefall as it had in the Great
Depression of the 1930s." Another guy in the same school of thought (Post Keynesian) actually said he doesn't think stimulus would help much at all. Which I agree with.
Also they opened my eyes that deficits are largely "natural" and that the entire economy (public, private (home and business) an foreign spending) all much balance to zero, thus if you want government balance it will come at a cost to private spending. I'd rather accept deficits (kept in check) if it could provide a natural buffer, over trillions of dollars pumped in at seemingly little to no impact. But I also disagree with much they say as well, while their grand plan to provide maximum employment while attaining price stability sounds good, I see many issues with it.
As for businesses that just are sitting on $$ it's an interesting situation. It has to be confidence I guess, and I wonder how much Obamacare's impact on future profit projections are. Hate to use personal touches for a point, but my friend is a financial analyst at a non profit and for the next 4,5 years he sees all big red numbers for them. And that's a non profit! I'd rather have employer healthcare jettisoned for a more universal approach but that's a different beast and I'm tired
Joined: September 03 2006
Location: .
Status: Offline
Points: 9869
Posted: May 28 2013 at 05:58
JJLehto wrote:
But I also disagree with much they say as well, while their grand plan to provide maximum employment while attaining price stability sounds good, I see many issues with it.
Yeah, it's not practical, like most theories. The practical implementation of Keynesian economics led to high inflation whereas a faithful implementation of the theory was probably not possible to attain. I think the Central Bank should be more concerned with inflation targeting than employment. It's the Govt (rest of) that should focus on employment. I know that several articles were written during the Euro crisis urging bankers to give up inflation targeting, but I don't agree. Monetary easing might only put more money in the hands of speculators and fuel another stockmarket boom...and crash.
JJLehto wrote:
As for businesses that just are sitting on $$ it's an interesting situation. It has to be confidence I guess, and I wonder how much Obamacare's impact on future profit projections are. Hate to use personal touches for a point, but my friend is a financial analyst at a non profit and for the next 4,5 years he sees all big red numbers for them. And that's a non profit! I'd rather have employer healthcare jettisoned for a more universal approach but that's a different beast and I'm tired
I am thinking about stuff like replacing the bridge that collapsed somewhere in the state of Washington? I think that is a good thing for the govt to fund; they should initiate more infrastructure projects because there is at least some likelihood of seeing a return on the penny. Blanket benefits in the mouths of voters is not going to achieve much...apart from winning the election. When India was growing consistently at 7-8% for five years or so, it was partly on account of a massive highway project being executed. Now the execution has slowed down and so has growth but the govt keeps funding rural employment schemes that get them the votes but drain the exchequer.
Joined: August 11 2005
Location: Philly
Status: Offline
Points: 15784
Posted: May 28 2013 at 07:43
thellama73 wrote:
I disappear for just a couple of months and I come back to find the libertarians supporting giving a $10,000 check to every poor person in America? Obviously, this place is falling apart in my absence.
Teo is right in his concerns. It creates a perverse incentive for people to remain poor enough to get the free money, it would be inflationary and cause a lifting of the poverty line and would not give people any permanent way to better their situation.
The poverty line in America is a joke anyway. It's completely arbitrary and drifts up just so the Democrats can shriek about how many people are poor and need welfare. You can live quite comfortably for well under the poverty line if you don't blow all your money on needless extravagances. Nobody is starving to death in America. There's enough free food in any major city to ensure that. In any other country, in any other time in history, the current complaints that the "poor" are too fat would have aroused blank stares of confusion or riotous laughter.
Milton Friedman liked the idea. I don't see how it provides any such incentives in the way I was speaking of it. Everyone would get the UBI supplement, thus the universal part. And it would be no more inflationary than any existing welfare program.
"One had to be a Newton to notice that the moon is falling, when everyone sees that it doesn't fall. "
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot create polls in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum
This page was generated in 0.283 seconds.
Donate monthly and keep PA fast-loading and ad-free forever.
/PAlogo_v2.gif "Progarchives.com Homepage")
Posted: May 22 2013 at 18:14
JJLehto wrote:
"Freedom" thread or something
Topic Options