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

a reply to: Davg80

This is why we can't import American economic policy from Europe. Their attitudes towards self-sufficiency and the nanny state are just too different.

a reply to: burdman30ott6

It's a self correcting problem if meddling, albeit well meaning people would step aside and allow nature to do it's job unimpeded.

I think that you reveal a fundamental issue. There are a lot of people who seem to believe that free market capitalism is the embodiment of natural laws and that unfavorable economic conditions result from perversion of natural order. Specifically, there is a desire to believe that there exists a strong correlation between free market capitalism and biological evolution. The appeal is obvious to people who feel that social order is itself a result of natural selection.

Three points:

1. All economic systems, even those modeled after systems from the natural world (consciously or not) are artificial. Their value isn't determined by how closely they model a natural system but rather by the desirability of their results. In other words, the best thing for society is an economy that yields the best results for society. Since we're all members of society, shouldn't the most desirable economic system simply be the one that satisfies the needs and wants of the most people?

2. Dogmatic understanding of the economy is inherently flawed as it leads to static models when what are really required are dynamic models that can adapt to a changing society — perhaps most importantly, technological progress.

3. This is really more of a observation relating to point 1 but I thought it could use emphasis. Entirely natural systems collapse all on their own and they do so all the time. Furthermore, even something like biological evolution that has been taking place for billions of years frequently leads to results that would be deemed undesirable in the context of an economic system — species go extinct all the time.

So yeah, blind faith that free market capitalism is a self-correcting system that will operate in perpetuity and yield the best results seems a lot like any other religion to me.

a reply to: luthier

Yes, you're right. It does mean lower prices for the self-employed.

I've read Hayek and Mises, but I'm not any sort of advocate of the Austrian school. I'm not an economist, but I am self-employed. I'm more of a wealth of nations kind of guy, preferring the notion that a free-market can only work if it's participants have a morality. Either way, you can stop for such specious reasons if you are inclined to.

a reply to: theantediluvian

"It's not the strongest of the species that survive, but the one that's most responsive to change" Frequently attributed to Darwin, actually comes from an economics professor and businessman in the 30's who saw a close relationship between Darwinism and Capitalism.

In the US the federal budget for 2015 was 3.8 trillion dollars. The government spends about 77% of its budget on Social Security, Medicare, & Medicade which comes out to 2.9 trillion. If You were to give every adult in the US 1k a month that would equal 2.96 trillion dollars a year. If they ended all government pensions, welfare programs, & laid off all the useless government employees this would be more than doable and would be a fairer system for everyone.

a reply to: TheBandit795

I would say "savings" don't make an economy grow until the saved money is at a level that the people feel they can spend some of it without jeopardizing their physical security; and then (and only then) will they spend.

And that leaves aside the fact that SO FEW PEOPLE are able to save anything at all.
So - fine. You think savings will grow the economy? Give the people some money to save then!!!

Easy peasy.

Doy.

a reply to: Aazadan

Would you agree that the same evolutionary mechanisms apply to economic systems themselves?

edit to add:

To clarify the above, what I was saying is shouldn't economic systems be thought of as being in competition with one other and therefore should't systems that are better adapted to society replace those less well adapted?

The idea doesn't shock me as much as would have when I was younger. Because there already exists many benefits that everyone gets already and I've seen how that works.

Like everyone who has children gets a certain amount from the state per child (mine are over 18 now, but if I am not mistaken, it is about 200 euros a month per child). It doesn't matter if you are rich or poor, every parent gets this.
All students get money for living expenses and rent - it doesn't matter if their parents are rich or poor.

For one thing, people just have less of a "gotta get MORE MONEY" attitude. I am not sure I understand why, since I grew up with the notion you can never have enough money. I have some strong suspicions it is because they don't do the "rags to riches " thing? Because people don't spend the first part of their life terribly worried about striving to make enough to survive, they sort of keep their calm attitude about money?

Like once you have that habit of thinking "gotta get it, gotta get it..." you never lose that momentum, and never notice when you have enough.

I don't know. But the problems we would expect (like people just raising prices higher to make even more money) we don't see that happening in the cases like apartments rented around universities.

If the landlord are ALSO getting this amount from the state each month, in addition to the rent... why would they feel the need to raise it AGAIN?

a reply to: BuzzyWigs

Let's just agree to disagree. If economies grow only because of consumption then everyone should be given credit card with a high limit.

Savings can be used buy businesses to create more products, and can also be used to produce better and more efficient equipment in order to better serve clients and their demands. And can be used to invest, making companies and industries grow. If everyone spends, there is no growth. And certainly not in the household.

If you spend all the money you receive (whether you earn it or not) you won't be able to do much to improve your own situation nor be able to protect yourself against sudden financial setbacks.

originally posted by: TheTory
a reply to: luthier

Yes, you're right. It does mean lower prices for the self-employed.

I've read Hayek and Mises, but I'm not any sort of advocate of the Austrian school. I'm not an economist, but I am self-employed. I'm more of a wealth of nations kind of guy, preferring the notion that a free-market can only work if it's participants have a morality. Either way, you can stop for such specious reasons if you are inclined to.

No that's good enough for me. And I agree with you on morality which is why I have an issue with Mises he ignores money power.

Which is your morality issue and the need for at least basic regulations.

I am saying if everyone becomes self employed that would be ideal. However the transition to such a system would have some rejections from very powerful money.

As it stands I see us headed for disaster. Many CEO:s have been trying to say we aren't going to have nearly as many jobs in even a decade.

Personally I have similar ideals as what you have said.

However I don't have faith we are going to move in that direction (majority self employed) and am looking to plan for the disaster.

originally posted by: BuzzyWigs
a reply to: TheBandit795
And that leaves aside the fact that SO FEW PEOPLE are able to save anything at all.

That's because the purchasing power of money has dropped drastically since the Federal Reserve was created.

So - fine. You think savings will grow the economy? Give the people some money to save then!!!

How about we first make it easier for them to earn it?

a reply to: TheBandit795There my son you are completely wrong. The economy is based on the consumption. No consumption, no movement in the economy =stagnation. Saving kills economies as it takes out the flow of money that is the economy. For an economy to flourish it has to have money continually spent in the market, that is consumption.
I've said this before and I'll say it again, this has been the problem stemming from the industrial revolution. Simple statement for you that was given for the reason of industrialisation "if we bring in the machines(automisation)they will earn your money for you and you will have more leisure time". The biggest lie that came out of employers mouths. It was a lie then, 150 years ago, as much as it's a lie now and your all still falling for the con.
If a company brought in a machine or computor to do your work then the company aught to pay you the money that the machine earns. Therefore you could stay at home and still draw your wage, not be paid by the government.
THAT is how it would work. But with a big BUT you Americans are entrenched in the greenback greed and come up with the eronious reason "if the management bought the machine it's theirs so only they should have the profit".
This of course is quite true but it makes an employee an ex-employee and the government then picks up the tab to keep him and his family and the bosses get richer.
Full automation should be the goal but the money that automation brings should be used in the economy (paying people to have more leisure time) not go towards making millionaires and billionaires.
There's only one way to do that and that is with government intervention. People like the Gates are'nt entrepeneurs or inovators they are obscene to the nth degree.

a reply to: TheBandit795There my son you are completely wrong. The economy is based on the consumption. No consumption, no movement in the economy =stagnation. Saving kills economies as it takes out the flow of money that is the economy. For an economy to flourish it has to have money continually spent in the market, that is consumption.
I've said this before and I'll say it again, this has been the problem stemming from the industrial revolution. Simple statement for you that was given for the reason of industrialisation "if we bring in the machines(automisation)they will earn your money for you and you will have more leisure time". The biggest lie that came out of employers mouths. It was a lie then, 150 years ago, as much as it's a lie now and your all still falling for the con.
If a company brought in a machine or computor to do your work then the company aught to pay you the money that the machine earns. Therefore you could stay at home and still draw your wage, not be paid by the government.
THAT is how it would work. But with a big BUT you Americans are entrenched in the greenback greed and come up with the eronious reason "if the management bought the machine it's theirs so only they should have the profit".
This of course is quite true but it makes an employee an ex-employee and the government then picks up the tab to keep him and his family and the bosses get richer.
Full automation should be the goal but the money that automation brings should be used in the economy (paying people to have more leisure time) not go towards making millionaires and billionaires.
There's only one way to do that and that is with government intervention. People like the Gates are'nt entrepeneurs or inovators they are obscene to the nth degree.

Double post!! how do I delete one?

originally posted by: theantediluvian
a reply to: Aazadan

Would you agree that the same evolutionary mechanisms apply to economic systems themselves?

Well, I don't really see the relationship between capitalism and Darwinism in the first place. I see how people think there's a relationship because of the competition aspect but competition isn't exclusive to capitalism.

To answer your question though, I think that economic systems are largely exempt because they operate on too slow a scale, by the time people figure out something is a bad idea and cease trying it, conditions and attitudes are completely different and someone will want to try things again.

I don't understand how this would be a good thing?

Is this besides your regular income?

Nanny-state ideology aside, this is just a ploy to sway voters for the vote later next month, imho.

originally posted by: TheBandit795
a reply to: BuzzyWigs

Let's just agree to disagree. If economies grow only because of consumption then everyone should be given credit card with a high limit.

Savings can be used buy businesses to create more products, and can also be used to produce better and more efficient equipment in order to better serve clients and their demands. And can be used to invest, making companies and industries grow. If everyone spends, there is no growth. And certainly not in the household.

If you spend all the money you receive (whether you earn it or not) you won't be able to do much to improve your own situation nor be able to protect yourself against sudden financial setbacks.

Haven't watched your video yet (though I will later tonight) so I can't argue it's points, but arguing what you say here, in this case savings is just code for making a larger purchase which is simply delaying consumption a bit, but still consuming. If you're actually saving, money isn't getting spent. The intention with saving to invest ultimately still involves spending.

If you live in a fixed income, then everything from food to utilities must be fixed, what are you going to do when prices go up?

Or I just don't get it.

originally posted by: Stormdancer777
If you live in a fixed income, then everything from food to utilities must be fixed, what are you going to do when prices go up?

Or I just don't get it.

When you live on an income that the government decides, then the government is also deciding where you live, how you live, what you eat, how you entertain yourself. . . etc.

Oh of course..

As long as they dont have to spend all their money on their military budget because they have US protecting them.