8 ms·

I'm asking for the source of your claim that implementing basic income would make no difference whatsoever. Sure, some prices would rise. Basic income needs to

by capisce 12y ago

I'm asking for the source of your claim that implementing basic income would make no difference whatsoever. Sure, some prices would rise. Basic income needs to be continuously calibrated relative to the cost of basic living. That said, I don't see any good reason to expect that the price of say food would rise beyond people's ability to buy. Western countries already produce way more food than is necessary, so supermarkets end up throwing a lot away. With increased demand there would be increased production of food, clothes, and other essential items. Market forces would still be in effect, so rent prices would reach a new equilibrium. As long as there are more apartments than people, rents would stay at a level that people could afford (or the empty apartments would lower rents until people could afford to live there). If there are not enough apartments, more would be built in cheap locations to satisfy demand. Sure, basic income wouldn't make everyone able to live in New York, but that's not the goal.

ekianjo 12y ago
No economic system is an island anymore. First, where do you get the supply of money to provide basic income to everyone? Seeing that most western countries and knee deep in debt, I guess you mean printing money then? Inflation would then go rampant, leading to rising prices, and rising commodity prices for everything that is not produced in the said country. Depending where you are that could have a very big impact on your daily purchasing power. And then you'd have to raise prices again because your "basic income" is not basic anymore to sustain paying for rents, for stuff more than bare minimum. In other words, more debts. That's a simplified explanation of what would be going on, but it gives a general idea of why it would not work so well in practice, and why it's not sustainable. By the way in most countries you have a "basic income" already for people who have no resources whatsoever (not for everyone in society) - it's very limited but that's enough to buy food usually. The idea is nothing new.
- capisce 12y ago
  Western countries are knee deep in public debt, but very rich when it comes to private wealth. We don't need to print money, we just need to increase taxes a bit, especially on the wealthiest 1 %. Inflation is an unfair tax as it targets middle class savers the most, instead of the rich who have most of their wealth in real estate, shares and bonds, etc. Some prices would rise, but not enough to offset the benefits of basic income. Our economy has more than enough productivity and wealth to provide everyone with food and shelter. The majority of food production is largely automated and does not require a lot of cheap labor. Your claim that basic income is not sustainable is unsubstantiated. Basic income is a great way to share the proceeds of automation and increased productivity among the many instead of just among the few.
  - ekianjo 12y ago
    Are you one of the Occupy Wall Street guys? :) It's very easy for corporations or rich individuals to move away from places were tax increase too much. More unemployment, is that what you want? Because when such companies/people move, they don't spend their money locally anymore. Yeah, and they are free to move, unless you want to set up a totalitarian regime. And the claim that taxing the very rich will save the government from its debt is hilarious, seeing that the US government, for example, has dozens of trillions of USD in debts and I have yet to hear about any company who has a trillion of net worth.
    - capisce 12y ago
      One of the Occupy Wall Street guys, like Obama? http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/aug/07/obama-tax-inversion-walgreens-avoid-executive-powers http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/aug/07/obama-tax-inver... Sure, tax evasion is a problem, but the fact is taxes have been on a downward curve for decades now. Wealth and corporate tax evasion is a race to the bottom, and requires international cooperation. Should we just shrug and let inequality grow without bounds? We don't need to restrict people's freedom to move, but the EU and US could for example cooperate on introducing tariffs on companies that base their operations in tax havens. Of course, there is still a lot that could be achieved on a purely national level too. The US public debt is at 18 trillion USD, whereas total private net worth is at least three times that amount: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Financial_position_of_the_United_States http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Financial_position_of_the_Unite... Sounds like it should be possible to reduce the public debt to a more manageable level.
      - ekianjo 12y ago
        Well you are obviously on another end of the political spectrum, I consider that taxes are way too high in many countries, and that governments should restrict the scope of what they do instead of increasing the tax burden on generations to come. Obviously this is not a very popular stance to have these days, but I am strongly convinced this is the best one if we are serious about our economic future.
- aianus 12y ago
  You take it from people or corporations who are extremely rich. I don't think we're at the point where it's sustainable yet but it's not hard to imagine a future where prices are dirt cheap and some robotics corporation is making $1t in profits every year after automating away every low-skilled job.

by capisce 12y ago

ekianjo 12y ago

No economic system is an island anymore. First, where do you get the supply of money to provide basic income to everyone? Seeing that most western countries and knee deep in debt, I guess you mean printing money then? Inflation would then go rampant, leading to rising prices, and rising commodity prices for everything that is not produced in the said country. Depending where you are that could have a very big impact on your daily purchasing power. And then you'd have to raise prices again because your "basic income" is not basic anymore to sustain paying for rents, for stuff more than bare minimum. In other words, more debts. That's a simplified explanation of what would be going on, but it gives a general idea of why it would not work so well in practice, and why it's not sustainable. By the way in most countries you have a "basic income" already for people who have no resources whatsoever (not for everyone in society) - it's very limited but that's enough to buy food usually. The idea is nothing new.

capisce 12y ago
Western countries are knee deep in public debt, but very rich when it comes to private wealth. We don't need to print money, we just need to increase taxes a bit, especially on the wealthiest 1 %. Inflation is an unfair tax as it targets middle class savers the most, instead of the rich who have most of their wealth in real estate, shares and bonds, etc. Some prices would rise, but not enough to offset the benefits of basic income. Our economy has more than enough productivity and wealth to provide everyone with food and shelter. The majority of food production is largely automated and does not require a lot of cheap labor. Your claim that basic income is not sustainable is unsubstantiated. Basic income is a great way to share the proceeds of automation and increased productivity among the many instead of just among the few.
- ekianjo 12y ago
  Are you one of the Occupy Wall Street guys? :) It's very easy for corporations or rich individuals to move away from places were tax increase too much. More unemployment, is that what you want? Because when such companies/people move, they don't spend their money locally anymore. Yeah, and they are free to move, unless you want to set up a totalitarian regime. And the claim that taxing the very rich will save the government from its debt is hilarious, seeing that the US government, for example, has dozens of trillions of USD in debts and I have yet to hear about any company who has a trillion of net worth.
  - capisce 12y ago
    One of the Occupy Wall Street guys, like Obama? http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/aug/07/obama-tax-inversion-walgreens-avoid-executive-powers http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/aug/07/obama-tax-inver... Sure, tax evasion is a problem, but the fact is taxes have been on a downward curve for decades now. Wealth and corporate tax evasion is a race to the bottom, and requires international cooperation. Should we just shrug and let inequality grow without bounds? We don't need to restrict people's freedom to move, but the EU and US could for example cooperate on introducing tariffs on companies that base their operations in tax havens. Of course, there is still a lot that could be achieved on a purely national level too. The US public debt is at 18 trillion USD, whereas total private net worth is at least three times that amount: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Financial_position_of_the_United_States http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Financial_position_of_the_Unite... Sounds like it should be possible to reduce the public debt to a more manageable level.
    - ekianjo 12y ago
      Well you are obviously on another end of the political spectrum, I consider that taxes are way too high in many countries, and that governments should restrict the scope of what they do instead of increasing the tax burden on generations to come. Obviously this is not a very popular stance to have these days, but I am strongly convinced this is the best one if we are serious about our economic future.
aianus 12y ago
You take it from people or corporations who are extremely rich. I don't think we're at the point where it's sustainable yet but it's not hard to imagine a future where prices are dirt cheap and some robotics corporation is making $1t in profits every year after automating away every low-skilled job.