"Freedom" thread or something - Progressive Rock Music Forum

Author

Message

Topic Search

Topic Options

dr wu23

Forum Senior Member

Joined: August 22 2010
Location: Indiana
Status: Offline
Points: 20647

Posted: May 28 2013 at 09:47

http://www.infowars.com/danger-google-warns-drudge-report-and-infowars-com-are-malware/

One does nothing yet nothing is left undone.
Haquin

JJLehto

Prog Reviewer

Joined: April 05 2006
Location: Tallahassee, FL
Status: Offline
Points: 34550

Posted: May 28 2013 at 15:02

Equality 7-2521 wrote:

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.

Precisely. Unless I'm missing something.

I could see issues with it being universal, besides the waste aspect (after all you'd be writing checks for millioniares who wouldn't need it) couldn't THAT be inflationary? Unless you have it with a pretty high tax rate like Friedman said. That isn't very libertarian but it may be needed, so at a middle class level you'd owe more in taxes than benefit recieved thus negating inflation. I think?

It may also provide incentive to look for work/earn more, instead of trying to stay near the poverty line as llama worries.

If I go above the poverty line now, I am simply cut off but under a situation above I'd still get a net benefit from the UBI for a bit. Kind of like a wean off of welfare, which would enhance your earnings at lower levels.

There's so much to ponder but still seems like a solid idea to me and probably still an improvement.

JJLehto

Prog Reviewer

Joined: April 05 2006
Location: Tallahassee, FL
Status: Offline
Points: 34550

Posted: May 28 2013 at 15:11

rogerthat wrote:

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. LOL

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 LOL

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. LOL

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.

Well, the idea proposed on that blog is the job guarantee I mentioned earlier. A job, at minimum wage, for anyone who wants it and they advocated that over stimulus spending and UBI actually. I don't fully grasp their theory yet, but it sounds like basically it'd be a "buffer" that grows and shrinks with the business cycle, thus providing an inflation check. I don't get that last part though, seems inherently inflationary to me. Also this is government..like most Keynesian thought it's OK on paper but irrational. For the "scientific" lot they sure do deny natural humanity! There's no way the program would stay at minimum wage, nor benefits stay limited.

Politicians live by pleasing people, they'd increase the generosity instantly and constantly, and why not? On that program I'd love the politician who gives me the sweet life!

Infrastructure is a major issue. It's a travest how bad it is in the US. It certainly COULD provide jobs and I had an econ prof who claimed infrastructure provides real multiplier effect, by making commerce easier. IDK about that infamous multiplier effect, but if there ever needed to be government jobs that could be a field to do it in,

rogerthat

Prog Reviewer

Joined: September 03 2006
Location: .
Status: Offline
Points: 9869

Posted: May 28 2013 at 19:28

JJLehto wrote:

I don't fully grasp their theory yet, but it sounds like basically it'd be a "buffer" that grows and shrinks with the business cycle, thus providing an inflation check. I don't get that last part though, seems inherently inflationary to me. Also this is government..like most Keynesian thought it's OK on paper but irrational.

The notion might be that new job creation should increase and decrease with the business cycle. But what about existing jobs rendered redundant due to lack of activity? In practice, govt would be forced to pay for their wages too without much productive output in return. This is what happened in the post war settlement, we've been there before and it has the potential to be inflationary. Govt expenditure directed to consumption rather than investment is likely to promote inflation.

Equality 7-2521 View Drop Down

Forum Senior Member

Joined: August 11 2005
Location: Philly
Status: Offline
Points: 15784

Posted: May 30 2013 at 08:20

JJLehto wrote:

Precisely. Unless I'm missing something.

It may also provide incentive to look for work/earn more, instead of trying to stay near the poverty line as llama worries.

There's so much to ponder but still seems like a solid idea to me and probably still an improvement.

More traditional welfare writes checks to millionaires too as they tend to control production of the goods that social programs provide. I don't really see this being much different. And yes, as you just said, I think it would alleviate any negative incentive problems more than cause them due to the universal nature of the program.

"One had to be a Newton to notice that the moon is falling, when everyone sees that it doesn't fall. "

Equality 7-2521 View Drop Down

Forum Senior Member

Joined: August 11 2005
Location: Philly
Status: Offline
Points: 15784

Posted: May 30 2013 at 08:21

dr wu23 wrote:

http://www.infowars.com/danger-google-warns-drudge-report-and-infowars-com-are-malware/

The report doesn't really prove anything.

"One had to be a Newton to notice that the moon is falling, when everyone sees that it doesn't fall. "

Equality 7-2521 View Drop Down

Forum Senior Member

Joined: August 11 2005
Location: Philly
Status: Offline
Points: 15784

Posted: May 30 2013 at 08:24

And we have this new news from an incredibly slow developing story:

Boston Bomber Acquaintance Unarmed when Shot by FBI Agent

"One had to be a Newton to notice that the moon is falling, when everyone sees that it doesn't fall. "

Padraic

Special Collaborator

Honorary Collaborator

Joined: February 16 2006
Location: Pennsylvania
Status: Offline
Points: 31169

Posted: May 30 2013 at 08:35

Equality 7-2521 wrote:

And we have this new news from an incredibly slow developing story:

Boston Bomber Acquaintance Unarmed when Shot by FBI Agent

This is a really bizarre story. Not sure if we'll ever learn the truth of it.

JJLehto

Prog Reviewer

Joined: April 05 2006
Location: Tallahassee, FL
Status: Offline
Points: 34550

Posted: May 30 2013 at 17:00

rogerthat wrote:

The notion might be that new job creation should increase and decrease with the business cycle.

That is indeed the notion, which is logical but I don't see how there's the "natural restraint" on inflation they talk about, as you wisely pointed out. Pretty much they say "it wont happen" and we needa accept it LOL

Which kinda pisses me off since that blog is so about "science" and how they are "right" absolutely and based on the facts, but they could really explain their policies better!

Padraic wrote:

Equality 7-2521 wrote:

And we have this new news from an incredibly slow developing story:

Boston Bomber Acquaintance Unarmed when Shot by FBI Agent

This is a really bizarre story. Not sure if we'll ever learn the truth of it.

Indeed

thellama73 View Drop Down

Collaborator

Honorary Collaborator

Joined: May 29 2006
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 8368

Posted: June 01 2013 at 05:56

You are right about the incentives. I misunderstood, thinking that only the poor would get the checks, but I still think that if you bump the lowest income in the nation up to $10,000, prices for low end goods would rise, and then Congress would complain "oh, $10,000 isn't enough. Let's make it $15,000" and a viscous cycle of raising the universal income would ensue. Perhaps I am wrong, but this is how I see it playing out.

Dean

Special Collaborator

Retired Admin and Amateur Layabout

Joined: May 13 2007
Location: Europe
Status: Offline
Points: 37575

Posted: June 01 2013 at 06:11

thellama73 wrote:

...a viscous cycle of raising the universal income would ensue...

... sorry, I know it was an unintentional typo but it made I laff.

thellama73 wrote:

Perhaps I am wrong, but this is how I see it playing out.

...and I think you are probably wrong but the idea that the cost of low-end goods is set by low-end wages is compelling for some who want to keep wages low to maximise profits (rather than keep retail prices down). If all those low-end goods (in the USA) were produced (in the USA) by the low-waged (in the USA) then there would be some logic in it, but they are not.

What?

JJLehto

Prog Reviewer

Joined: April 05 2006
Location: Tallahassee, FL
Status: Offline
Points: 34550

Posted: June 01 2013 at 10:27

Its a legit concern llama. We all know government has the incentive to expand programs, even if they are start out fine to levels that go too far.

Equality 7-2521 View Drop Down

Forum Senior Member

Joined: August 11 2005
Location: Philly
Status: Offline
Points: 15784

Posted: June 03 2013 at 09:27

thellama73 wrote:

You are right about the incentives. I misunderstood, thinking that only the poor would get the checks, but I still think that if you bump the lowest income in the nation up to $10,000, prices for low end goods would rise, and then Congress would complain "oh, $10,000 isn't enough. Let's make it $15,000" and a viscous cycle of raising the universal income would ensue. Perhaps I am wrong, but this is how I see it playing out.

In a better world I imagine it providing a real incentive to act as bulwarks against inflation and monetary manipulation.

"One had to be a Newton to notice that the moon is falling, when everyone sees that it doesn't fall. "

Equality 7-2521 View Drop Down

Forum Senior Member

Joined: August 11 2005
Location: Philly
Status: Offline
Points: 15784

Posted: June 03 2013 at 09:29

Dean wrote:

thellama73 wrote:

...a viscous cycle of raising the universal income would ensue...

... sorry, I know it was an unintentional typo but it made I laff.

thellama73 wrote:

Perhaps I am wrong, but this is how I see it playing out.

The added purchasing power would most dramatically affect the poor who are most likely to purchase low end goods. It doesn't seem illogical that this could provide a demand spike which increases prices.

"One had to be a Newton to notice that the moon is falling, when everyone sees that it doesn't fall. "

Dean

Special Collaborator

Retired Admin and Amateur Layabout

Joined: May 13 2007
Location: Europe
Status: Offline
Points: 37575

Posted: June 03 2013 at 09:53

Equality 7-2521 wrote:

Dean wrote:

thellama73 wrote:

...a viscous cycle of raising the universal income would ensue...

... sorry, I know it was an unintentional typo but it made I laff.

thellama73 wrote:

Perhaps I am wrong, but this is how I see it playing out.

Creating a demand spike is a different kettle of fish to the 'viscid' cycle Logan is citing where it is the high wages that push the manufacturing costs up. Surely in these imaginary mindgames the right method is more meaningful than arriving at "the right answer by any means"

Edited by Dean - June 03 2013 at 09:53

What?

Equality 7-2521 View Drop Down

Forum Senior Member

Joined: August 11 2005
Location: Philly
Status: Offline
Points: 15784

Posted: June 03 2013 at 10:26

Look at this insane WSJ article complaining about a NYC bikeshare program

"One had to be a Newton to notice that the moon is falling, when everyone sees that it doesn't fall. "

Equality 7-2521 View Drop Down

Forum Senior Member

Joined: August 11 2005
Location: Philly
Status: Offline
Points: 15784

Posted: June 03 2013 at 10:29

Dean wrote:

Well by induction the cycle would follow, no?

I have no clue what you're getting at by your second statement.

"One had to be a Newton to notice that the moon is falling, when everyone sees that it doesn't fall. "

Dean

Special Collaborator

Retired Admin and Amateur Layabout

Joined: May 13 2007
Location: Europe
Status: Offline
Points: 37575

Posted: June 03 2013 at 11:06

Equality 7-2521 wrote:

Dean wrote:

Well by induction the cycle would follow, no?

Well. In a word. No. SInce a demand spike that increases prices does not induce a wage hike for those producing the goods then it cycle is not a closed loop so you cannot infer that.

Equality 7-2521 wrote:

I have no clue what you're getting at by your second statement.

If the goal is to keep wages down (for whatever reason) then the justification for that has to be based upon a valid cause and effect (ie the right method) and that has to be the one that the original premis was based upon (ie what Logan said it was). If by someother external means there is an uncorrolated increase in prices that occured that is not directly attributable to the initial cause then that is attempting to achieve "the right answer by any means".

What?

Equality 7-2521 View Drop Down

Forum Senior Member

Joined: August 11 2005
Location: Philly
Status: Offline
Points: 15784

Posted: June 03 2013 at 12:00

Dean wrote:

Well. In a word. No. SInce a demand spike that increases prices does not induce a wage hike for those producing the goods then it cycle is not a closed loop so you cannot infer that.

The argument is that this will necessarily lead to legislation increasing the UBI to maintain an equal level of purchasing power. Thus giving a wage hike. Thus bringing us to the beginning of the argument. Of course in reality there would be a limiting procedure, but as a rough theoretical musing, I don't think llama's statement was wrong.

Dean wrote:

I don't think I understand why we're trying to keep wages down?

"One had to be a Newton to notice that the moon is falling, when everyone sees that it doesn't fall. "

Dean

Special Collaborator

Retired Admin and Amateur Layabout

Joined: May 13 2007
Location: Europe
Status: Offline
Points: 37575

Posted: June 03 2013 at 12:44

Equality 7-2521 wrote:

The argument is that this will necessarily lead to legislation increasing the UBI to maintain an equal level of purchasing power. Thus giving a wage hike. Thus bringing us to the beginning of the argument. Of course in reality there would be a limiting procedure, but as a rough theoretical musing, I don't think llama's statement was wrong.

(now I'm not *at work* and can devote more than 10% of my attention to it) ... It's still "No". There will be no wage hike because it is still not a closed-loop. Increasing the buying power of the poor does not result in a proportional linear increase in demand for low priced goods because they do not simply buy more of the same they buy more different things and those different things are not common to all. So the overal increase is proportional but the individual increases are minimal so do not affect demand. Rough musings are fine as long as they are not so simplified as to be unrepresentative.

Equality 7-2521 wrote:

I don't think I understand why we're trying to keep wages down?

Well, no one here seems to be in favour of any proposal that increases the basic income therefore the conclusion is that the goal is to keep it down. Controlling any "vicious" cycle involves holding one of the elements in that cycle at a constant level - historically, wage-control (by whatever means, and not necessarily by direct regulation) appears to be the preferred method.

What?