• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Basic Income Doesn't Work

Vadinho said:
Does it make economic sense to have massive unemployment while machines replace us and the owners of industry take all the profits for themselves? Whenever I hear anyone use the term "economic sense" to analyze something completely new or transformative, I smell a rat. Unlike other eras of rapid technological achievement, the information age does indeed make jobs obsolete without replacing those numbers in the making of information products. We will soon be at a point where machines and software can do much of what we pay humans to do. Unless the number of humans decreases, how are all these humans going to survive unless massive redistribution schemes are enacted? Think back 100 years, think ahead another 100 years. In that 200 year span technology will have surpassed the imagination of all but the wildest sci fi writers alive 100 years ago.
Click to expand...

You seem nice
 
Spartacus FPV said:
You seem nice
Click to expand...

Economics is called the dismal science for a reason. Orthodoxy seems to rule the popular impressions of economic theory, it is hard to rid ourselves of dogma even in the face of new information. There are some very exciting new ideas coming from the critics of standard economic thought, I tend to spend my time learning more about them. If you like economics, can I suggest bookmarking "Angry Bear"?. While you may not agree with what is on this very famous economics blog, it will definitely get you thinking about your own opinions about economics.
 
late said:
1) The death of the estate tax creates a privileged class, a defacto royalty.
Click to expand...

:shrug: this is a claim which lacks supporting evidence.

You can see the beginnings of that in the machinations of the Koch brothers scheming to get more money and power through rent seeking.
Click to expand...

Interestingly enough, the Koch brothers often support a reduction in government which would reduce a business the size of their's ability to increase barriers to entry and protect itself from competition.

Everyone is always freaking out about the rich folks on the other side -the Big Scary Koch Brothers; George Soros Taking Over The World; Evil Hollywood Millionaires. None of them provide support for the claim that the estate tax is all that stands between us and a de facto royalty - certainly it's lack did not cause the emergence of such an entity before we had one, and, if anything, the pace at which market domineers rise and fall has increased.

Try reading Stiglitz's Inequality, if you want more.
https://www.economist.com/news/lead...ng-inherited-assets-strong-hated-tax-fair-one
Click to expand...

I would point out, for example, that your own source says that any link between the estate tax and entrenched wealthy is unclear - and that's your advocate.

2) Actually, yes. Conservative is the wrong word, reactionary radicals don't like macroeconomics because it contradicts their religion. A religion that pretends to be about economics.
Click to expand...

OTC, if you bothered to learn about them, you would find that many conservatives are particularly attracted to macroeconomics. :)

3) Your assumption is that the future will be like the past.
Click to expand...

Actually my assumption is that the present will look similar to the present. In the present, the rate of turnover in the top companies and top earners has accelerated.
 
FreedomFromAll said:
Education is too expensive, I think most agree with that. But what if getting the education needed for high tech jobs wasnt too expensive?

Again, I dont give a **** about your ideological hang ups. Why do you really need to keep attacking Objectivism? I didnt mention it nor is it popular enough to have an real impact. I do know the groups that are obsessed with attacking Objectivism, and seriously they have their own faults.
Click to expand...
Training for job skills is not too expensive, yet....
There is a bit of a difference between education and training, most of us will never see true education.
 
roughdraft274 said:
Bold 1
They made it a long way.
Click to expand...

They did indeed.

The idea of the top 1% owning the vast majority of the wealth isn't some new, industrial-age nightmare. It's the standard human story. The strength and wealth of our middle class is what's new.

And as wealth disparity got worse they had less and less democracy and eventually fell. I can't say it's the only reason, obviously it wasn't.
Click to expand...

It wasn't really a reason at all. Taxes, Slavery, Unemployment, Loss of support by Elites, and an increasingly burdensome public bribery program all contributed. Loss of a functioning Republic that effectively checked the Caesar didn't seem to play a role, as it occurred multiple centuries before.

But to say that they are some kind of an example of how wealth disparity is a good thing seems silly.
Click to expand...

:shrug: I wouldn't say it's a good thing in and of itself. I said that the example of most governments and empires in history belies the notion that wealthy people becoming too wealthy causes the government to collapse.

I never stated otherwise. I argued that there is a certain point where wealth disparity becomes unsustainable.
Click to expand...

:shrug: I don't see why. As a Middle Class Guy, I can't think of a single time I've ever stared at the Wall Street Journal page and thought "Man, if the value of Jeff Bezo's stock goes up another 2%, it's gonna be time to start killing cops".

I don't know the exact point. It's probably different amongst different countries, cultures, groups of people etc. But there is a point. I doubt you'd disagree with me on that.
Click to expand...

I would - in and of itself. How the disparity is produced (for example, those who use the coercive and extractive power of the State to enrich themselves v those who make a better mousetrap) plays a huge role in the stability or instability it engenders.

As far as wealth disparity in Rome, by the best accounts I have seen, it's quite a bit less than what we are currently at in the US.
Click to expand...

:shrug: I would have to go back and look - and, as you pointed out, this figure changed over the centuries. The broad point remains - claims that rich people becoming too rich destroys a nation don't hold up.
 
distraff said:
Basic income wasn't tried on a national scale in these countries.
Click to expand...

The problem, it seems, is funding such a thing. Some will end up with a bigger UBI handout than they pay in taxes but, obviously, not anywhere near all would do so.
 
D_NATURED said:
Jesus, dude, you're overlooking the fact that the ten percent who aren't employed have better healthcare than the majority of the working class here. If you don't consider that a humanitarian victory, you're crazy.

When will conservatives learn that slavery is not the same as full employment?
Click to expand...

This is a thread proving that even liberal Finland has decided that basic income was a total failure.
 
Moderate Right said:
Tried. Failed.

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation-now/2018/04/25/finland-basic-income-685-fails/549087002/

By the way, both liberal countries of France and Finland have unemployment rates around 10% while the US is at about 4%. When will liberals ever learn that liberalism doesn't work.
Click to expand...

We already have a guaranteed basic income; it's called welfare benefits. Along with other benefits including free health care it's often better not to get trained and work.
 
Moderate Right said:
This is a thread proving that even liberal Finland has decided that basic income was a total failure.
Click to expand...

Hey, good job completely ignoring the content of my post and just responding with tangential nonsense. Is Trumpism contageous?
 
Moderate Right said:
This is a thread proving that even liberal Finland has decided that basic income was a total failure.
Click to expand...

Hardly.

It's an ongoing debate, there and here.

"In the meantime, Finland has already moved on to consider a broader revamping of its social service programs. It is studying a new form of social welfare policy now in effect in Britain: so-called universal credit, which rolls existing government aid programs into one monthly lump sum payment...

“Discussion about basic income is not over, but it is a part of the larger discussion now.” "
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/04/24/business/finland-universal-basic-income.html

One of our problems with welfare is that it's expensive, due to it's quite high administrative costs. You could help more people with the same dollars, by using the Fed tax system. We already do that to a degree.

What we need is to bring our various programs together, so that they are both cost effective, and provide an effective social safety net.

This is a part of a larger problem. A well educated person doesn't need welfare...

https://www.amazon.com/Creating-Learning-Society-Approach-Development/dp/0231152140
 
Last edited:
late said:
Hardly.

It's an ongoing debate, there and here.

"In the meantime, Finland has already moved on to consider a broader revamping of its social service programs. It is studying a new form of social welfare policy now in effect in Britain: so-called universal credit, which rolls existing government aid programs into one monthly lump sum payment...

“Discussion about basic income is not over, but it is a part of the larger discussion now.” "
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/04/24/business/finland-universal-basic-income.html

One of our problems with welfare is that it's expensive, due to it's quite high administrative costs. You could help more people with the same dollars, by using the Fed tax system. We already do that to a degree.

What we need is to bring our various programs together, so that they are both cost effective, and provide an effective social safety net.

This is a part of a larger problem. A well educated person doesn't need welfare...

https://www.amazon.com/Creating-Learning-Society-Approach-Development/dp/0231152140
Click to expand...

It's not an ongoing debate in liberal Finland. It was tried, failed, and ended.
 
late said:
Hardly.

It's an ongoing debate, there and here.

"In the meantime, Finland has already moved on to consider a broader revamping of its social service programs. It is studying a new form of social welfare policy now in effect in Britain: so-called universal credit, which rolls existing government aid programs into one monthly lump sum payment...

“Discussion about basic income is not over, but it is a part of the larger discussion now.” "
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/04/24/business/finland-universal-basic-income.html

One of our problems with welfare is that it's expensive, due to it's quite high administrative costs. You could help more people with the same dollars, by using the Fed tax system. We already do that to a degree.

What we need is to bring our various programs together, so that they are both cost effective, and provide an effective social safety net.

This is a part of a larger problem. A well educated person doesn't need welfare...

https://www.amazon.com/Creating-Learning-Society-Approach-Development/dp/0231152140
Click to expand...

It's not an ongoing debate in liberal Finland. It was tried, failed, and ended.
 
Moderate Right said:
It's not an ongoing debate in liberal Finland. It was tried, failed, and ended.
Click to expand...

You oversimplify.

This is part of their effort to make a genuinely effective social safety net. You can certainly say they were uncomfortable with the concept.

“Discussion about basic income is not over, but it is a part of the larger discussion now.”

But perhaps you know more about Finland than actual Finns...
 
late said:
You oversimplify.

This is part of their effort to make a genuinely effective social safety net. You can certainly say they were uncomfortable with the concept.

“Discussion about basic income is not over, but it is a part of the larger discussion now.”

But perhaps you know more about Finland than actual Finns...
Click to expand...

Oversimplify? Liberal Finland tried it. Didn't work. They stopped it. They have no plans to resurrect it from it's well deserved burial. Just like the left though when their liberal policies fail the answer is always to double down and do more of it. As Forest Gump would say, "Stupid is as stupid does."
 
late said:
Of course.

The Finns have a commitment to a robust social safety net you seem blissfully ignorant of.
Click to expand...

Please post proof that the Finns will ever reconsider basic income.
 
Moderate Right said:
Tried. Failed.

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation-now/2018/04/25/finland-basic-income-685-fails/549087002/

By the way, both liberal countries of France and Finland have unemployment rates around 10% while the US is at about 4%. When will liberals ever learn that liberalism doesn't work.
Click to expand...

Cherry picking, are we?

Well, Norway, that bastion of liberalism, has an unemployment rate of 3.7%.

LJB had an averaged unemployment rate of 4.2%, the best of all presidents, while Ford had an averaged unemployment rate of 7.8% and Reagan had an averaged unemployment rate of 7.5%.

See, I can cherry pick just like you, and say that conservatism failed.


But, the truth is far more complex, so please abstain from simplisticism.
 
Moderate Right said:
Tried. Failed.

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation-now/2018/04/25/finland-basic-income-685-fails/549087002/

By the way, both liberal countries of France and Finland have unemployment rates around 10% while the US is at about 4%. When will liberals ever learn that liberalism doesn't work.
Click to expand...

Your concern is quite selective, especially because your politics and POV support this acute condition and trend.

Our 2016 Triennial Federal Reserve SCF indicates the wealthiest in our country have taken control of and since, are "adjusting" to their exclusive benefit the politics formerly preventing them from literally taking it all.:
https://www.federalreserve.gov/publ...s-in-us-family-finances-from-2013-to-2016.htm

FederalReserveWealthDistribution2016.jpg
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom