It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

‘Basic income’ poll: 64% of Europeans would vote in favor!

page: 8
17
<< 5  6  7    9  10  11 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 24 2016 @ 06:02 AM
link   

originally posted by: Fishy

originally posted by: avgguy
a reply to: Kali74

So how does paying people for nothing solve that? And doesn't that put a higher tax burden on the few with jobs? I seriously don't get it.


The money could simply be issued ex nihilo. Just as every bank loan throughout history was.

No, it wouldn't create inflation. As long as the money supply grows proportional to the economy's production and manufacturing capacity. And the money supply has been growing geometrically for centuries anyway.

Also, not all the money would need to be issued out of nothing. It depends what percentage of the issued money would return back to the government through taxes, how soon it would.

Anyway, it would be a boon to the economy because capitalism operates with an intrinsic purchasing power deficit which needs to be continually made up for through a perpetually geometrically expanding money supply. This is even more so the case the less there is a need to employ people to produce staff rather than have machines do it.

Arguments against a basic income this are routed in one or more of the following : ignorance, indoctrination, obtuseness, callousness.


Actually there are a lot of very valid arguments against UBI, the simplest if which is that there is a lot more socially useful ways to guarantee a minimum income. A job guarantee scheme would provide a similar set minimum income but while actually achieving something productive and providing a host of social and economic benefits.
It would also obviously require additional schemes for those unable to work but I think think this is much better use of resources than a UBI and has many more benefits.




posted on May, 24 2016 @ 06:05 AM
link   
a reply to: Fishy

Two banks cant earn money by lending each other money. They would be increasing their liabilities at the same rate.
edit on 24-5-2016 by ScepticScot because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 24 2016 @ 09:06 AM
link   
This was actually an idea put forth by milton friedman, the libertarian economist. It has to be set up just right but technically it should work. That's what earned income credit is based off of in the United States, thought it has been bastardized a bit.




posted on May, 24 2016 @ 09:10 AM
link   
a reply to: Fishy

I have made so many threads and posts over this same subject that I'd think that members here would know that I know that banks and central banks create money out of thin air.

Just saying.

www.abovetopsecret.com...



posted on May, 24 2016 @ 09:18 AM
link   
a reply to: crayzeed

When there is only consumption the economy eventually paralyzes. There has to be creation and production. And production improves and becomes more efficient where there are more savings to enable and support that, which grows the economy. If we as people never saved, if we immediately consumed what we got, we would still be in the stone age. Let's just say it's both.



posted on May, 24 2016 @ 09:41 AM
link   

originally posted by: luthier
a reply to: ketsuko

Uh no I wasn't making an arguement for socialism.

Do you think socialist countries are the only ones with economic trouble? The world could very well have said the US is in the way to a collapse because of capitalism during the great depression.


What capitalism? You mean cronyism.



Plenty of socialist countries are doing as well as anyone else. Or as bad.


Not really Countries with more economic freedom and less government meddling in the economy almost always do much better than other countries.


You pick a country that was never that strong to begin with and it's a bad arguement. Now if Germany goes down sure.


Venezuela had a very strong economy in the 50's. And until the 80's it had the highest standard of living in Latin America. It was strong.



posted on May, 24 2016 @ 10:03 AM
link   
a reply to: TheBandit795

Countries with highest standard/quality of life generally are social democratic or close to it.



posted on May, 24 2016 @ 10:13 AM
link   

originally posted by: TheBandit795

originally posted by: luthier
a reply to: ketsuko

Uh no I wasn't making an arguement for socialism.

Do you think socialist countries are the only ones with economic trouble? The world could very well have said the US is in the way to a collapse because of capitalism during the great depression.


What capitalism? You mean cronyism.



Plenty of socialist countries are doing as well as anyone else. Or as bad.


Not really Countries with more economic freedom and less government meddling in the economy almost always do much better than other countries.


You pick a country that was never that strong to begin with and it's a bad arguement. Now if Germany goes down sure.


Venezuela had a very strong economy in the 50's. And until the 80's it had the highest standard of living in Latin America. It was strong.


Uh no. Having the highest standard of living in Latin America is not the same as Europe. Not even the same fruit.

And if you look at standard of living, happiness, and education your wrong.

The prob is free market economists were naive about money power. They thought an unregulated market would make steady growth and stability. It did for a while at the expense of workers and the lack of regulations allowed the oligarchs to get their hands depper into the political system.

I am not a supporter of socialism. A basic income is not socialism. I'm fact even some Austrian economists (the absolutely most idealist free market capitalists) have supported a basic income.

Why?

Because everyone gets the money. The gov doesn't decide who gets it. It shuts down several branches of government.



posted on May, 24 2016 @ 10:15 AM
link   
a reply to: ScepticScot

Nope, their economic system is more free.



posted on May, 24 2016 @ 10:18 AM
link   

originally posted by: TheBandit795
a reply to: ScepticScot

Nope, their economic system is more free.



Uh no. Denmark does not have a "more free economic system". In fact you are encouraged to not stand out in that culture.

Again not advocated the system just saying socialism may not be best for America but it's fine for small homogenous countries.



posted on May, 24 2016 @ 10:25 AM
link   

originally posted by: ScepticScot
a reply to: TheBandit795

Countries with highest standard/quality of life generally are social democratic or close to it.


Quality of life metrics are hogwash.

Take a look at suicides by country.
France, Finland, Germany, Sweden, Austria, and New Zealand all top the quality of life metrics, yet their people kill themselves at similar or higher rates than people in the US. Quite the quality of life they've got.
edit on 24-5-2016 by Dfairlite because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 24 2016 @ 10:27 AM
link   

originally posted by: ScepticScot
a reply to: TheBandit795

Countries with highest standard/quality of life generally are social democratic or close to it.


They're also monarchies. Maybe we should try that out.



posted on May, 24 2016 @ 10:28 AM
link   

originally posted by: ShadeWolf
Here's the thing: as a few people have said already, there just aren't enough jobs to go around now, and it's going to get worse in the coming years with increasing automation. That plays out in one of two ways: either governments step up and implement plans like basic minimum income and socialized housing/medicine/etc, or they attempt "social Darwinism" and end up with a bloodbath that will make the world wars look like a schoolyard fight.

The biggest problem? The US will almost without a doubt go for option two, and they'll bring the world down with them, just like in 1929.


Not enough jobs to go around, right.

So why all the immigrants?

This hasn't even been implemented yet, and we are going to blame the U.S?



posted on May, 24 2016 @ 10:29 AM
link   

originally posted by: Davg80
a reply to: Aazadan

Yes it would eliminate the minimum wage, and it would mean students probably wouldnt need al those McDonals jobs and such, and it would allow an influx of migrant workers, to fill all the vacancies and live a better life. its all good!
and all part of a long coming New World Order.
its rather exciting seeing such massive changes imminent.
and i say imminent because the more i looked into it the more reports say that they want this in place and quick.

Regards


and there it is migrants equals slavery



posted on May, 24 2016 @ 10:33 AM
link   



posted on May, 24 2016 @ 10:41 AM
link   

originally posted by: luthier
Uh no. Having the highest standard of living in Latin America is not the same as Europe. Not even the same fruit.


In the 50's and 60's it was higher some countries in Europe.


And if you look at standard of living, happiness, and education your wrong.





The prob is free market economists were naive about money power. They thought an unregulated market would make steady growth and stability. It did for a while at the expense of workers and the lack of regulations allowed the oligarchs to get their hands depper into the political system.


They lobbied for more regulation which created near monopolies for them. In a true unregulated market they could not be able to do that and they would not be able to enjoy government protection against competition. It would be possible for a behemoth to go bankrupt and disappear if the quality of their business and product was not up to par compared to others.


I am not a supporter of socialism. A basic income is not socialism. I'm fact even some Austrian economists (the absolutely most idealist free market capitalists) have supported a basic income.

Why?

Because everyone gets the money. The gov doesn't decide who gets it. It shuts down several branches of government.


I have a feeling that a basic income would cause higher inflation.



posted on May, 24 2016 @ 10:42 AM
link   
a reply to: TheBandit795

Countries with high standard of living tend to score highly on economic freedom measures as they have established legal systems with strongly protected property rights.
They also tend to have developed welfare systems and government regulations. It is not an either or.
edit on 24-5-2016 by ScepticScot because: Typo



posted on May, 24 2016 @ 10:44 AM
link   
a reply to: Dfairlite

Yes because educational achievement, health outcomes and poverty levels are all bunk. We should just measure quality of life by suicide rates.......



posted on May, 24 2016 @ 10:52 AM
link   

originally posted by: Kali74
a reply to: Davg80

It's related to a conversation that the entire West needs to have. The industrial age is over in the West, it's not coming back. We need something to replace it ...but what and what do we do in the mean time?


M.T. Keshe is beginning the next Space Era revolution. Which West will be stuck with debts for a little while as they learn sharing is tax free.



posted on May, 24 2016 @ 10:58 AM
link   

originally posted by: ScepticScot
a reply to: TheBandit795

Countries with high standard of living tend to score highly on economic freedom measures as they have established legal systems with strongly protected property rights.


Which is one of the main reasons why their economies grow.




They all tend to have developed welfare systems and government regulations. It is not an either or.


Which is a big reason why their economies stagnate. Take Sweden for example.

mises.org...

mises.org...



new topics

top topics



 
17
<< 5  6  7    9  10  11 >>

log in

join