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

originally posted by: ScepticScot
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.......

If an educated, healthy, and wealthy person kills themselves, were they happy? Yet they'd tick all of the quality of life boxes for you.

Now explain for me, why people in countries that have high education levels, live healthy lives, and good wealth prospects are killing themselves at a higher rate than in the US, how does that translate to high quality of life?

a reply to: TheBandit795

Thats absolutely false. Regulations were faught very hard by people like Ford and Rockefellors, Carnegie mine operators. In fact some states wouldn't even use the regulations passed and working conditions were the worst. Before the fed after the fed you name it.

If your an Austrian schooler than we have to agree to disagree.

Mises biggest problem is ignoring money power. The excuse is always there was never a free market. It's a complete myth an unregulated market will work. It never has, you have to account for money power and corruption. The Free market will never make the adjustments on its own because a truly free market will not work with human greed. Psychopaths will always gain control by exploiting morality, and they will horde resources and manipulate the market that way. Just like the Rothchilds did with gold.

I know I know this theoretical unicorn market would be different but about 6000 years of human trade shows a different story.

originally posted by: Dfairlite

originally posted by: ScepticScot
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.......

If a very smart, healthy, and wealthy person kills themselves, were they happy? Yet they'd tick all of the quality of life boxes for you.

Thats not the psychology at all. The suicide rates go up as society gets elevated. This is a very well studied phenomenon. Why are the suicide rates of horribly difficult countries like Bulgaria lower than the US or Canada? Because those people are far too busy surviving and trying to feed themselves to be depressed and have time to think.

There are many issues even in your endocrine system that occur the easier life is. Especially the less physically active you are. Your glands need to produce the hormones they were made for and your body chemistry even. Even using your adrenaline is important.

originally posted by: luthier

originally posted by: Dfairlite

originally posted by: ScepticScot
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.......

If a very smart, healthy, and wealthy person kills themselves, were they happy? Yet they'd tick all of the quality of life boxes for you.

Thats not the psychology at all. The suicide rates go up as society gets elevated. This is a very well studied phenomenon. Why are the suicide rates of horrible countries like Bulgaria lower than the US or Canada? Because those people are far too busy surviving and trying to feed themselves to be depressed and have time to think.

There are many issues even in your endocrine system that occur the easier life is. Especially the less physically active you are. Your glands need to produce the hormones they were made for and your body chemistry even. Even using your adrenaline is important.

So how does that translate to a high quality of life? I mean, is depression a better quality of life than surviving?

Further, your analysis fails. Burundi is the second poorest country in the world and has a massive suicide rate. Double that of the west. Zimbabwe is also one of the top poor countries and has a suicide rate that's about 150% of the western nations.

My point is not that those metrics aren't good metrics, rather they don't measure what they purport to measure.

a reply to: luthier

Exactly. Let's agree to disagree. Lots of regulations are there to regulate small businesses out of the market.

Take hair braiding for as an easy example. There is no need for hair braiders to have to pass a course to get a license to braid hair.

ij.org...

originally posted by: Fishy
Money has no intrinsic worth or value. And it certainly is not scarce. You can create trillions of it out of nothing by pressing a few keys at the right keyboard.

Create the money out of nothing like every bank loan in the last few centuries.

Bank loans add money to the system, but that adding to the system is also temporary. Repaying the loan removes the money from the system.

You can create new money to pay for it, but only to the extent that the demand for new money exists. Once you meet that demand you'll run into rather severe inflation problems. Instead it's better to obtain the money through taxes or other means the government can use to profit.

originally posted by: ScepticScot
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.

A basic income creates jobs. If everyone has money to spend and they go spend it, businesses can't handle the volume, this forces them to bring on someone to work. That someone will need a wage they consider worth it. It results in a more market driven approach than we currently have where those at the bottom of the totem pole work mostly under duress and with no bargaining power.

originally posted by: Dfairlite

originally posted by: luthier

originally posted by: Dfairlite

originally posted by: ScepticScot
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.......

If a very smart, healthy, and wealthy person kills themselves, were they happy? Yet they'd tick all of the quality of life boxes for you.

Thats not the psychology at all. The suicide rates go up as society gets elevated. This is a very well studied phenomenon. Why are the suicide rates of horrible countries like Bulgaria lower than the US or Canada? Because those people are far too busy surviving and trying to feed themselves to be depressed and have time to think.

There are many issues even in your endocrine system that occur the easier life is. Especially the less physically active you are. Your glands need to produce the hormones they were made for and your body chemistry even. Even using your adrenaline is important.

So how does that translate to a high quality of life? I mean, is depression a better quality of life than surviving?

Does the suicide rate equal poverty rate?
Or wealth distribution, access to time off to be with your family etc? Nope.

How many people re we talking about comiting suicide compaired to living at a high standard.

Compaired to how many people live in poverty and struggle to get by without access to bettering themselves.

originally posted by: luthier

originally posted by: Dfairlite

originally posted by: luthier

originally posted by: Dfairlite

originally posted by: ScepticScot
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.......

If a very smart, healthy, and wealthy person kills themselves, were they happy? Yet they'd tick all of the quality of life boxes for you.

Thats not the psychology at all. The suicide rates go up as society gets elevated. This is a very well studied phenomenon. Why are the suicide rates of horrible countries like Bulgaria lower than the US or Canada? Because those people are far too busy surviving and trying to feed themselves to be depressed and have time to think.

There are many issues even in your endocrine system that occur the easier life is. Especially the less physically active you are. Your glands need to produce the hormones they were made for and your body chemistry even. Even using your adrenaline is important.

So how does that translate to a high quality of life? I mean, is depression a better quality of life than surviving?

Does the suicide rate equal poverty rate?
Or wealth distribution, access to time off to be with your family etc? Nope.

How many people re we talking about comiting suicide compaired to living at a high standard.

Compaired to how many people live in poverty and struggle to get by without access to bettering themselves.

As people get higher on the quality of life scale they kill themselves more often. It's not linear, of course, but it flies in the face of the metric.

If people actually had a higher quality of life they would kill themselves at a lower rate.

originally posted by: TheBandit795
a reply to: luthier

Exactly. Let's agree to disagree. Lots of regulations are there to regulate small businesses out of the market.

Take hair braiding for as an easy example. There is no need for hair braiders to have to pass a course to get a license to braid hair.

ij.org...

The difference is literally no economists who are respected or part of policy believe an unregulated market is the answer.

Just because some regulations are bad and some solutions are bad does in no way mean there wasn't a problem.

Money power can create so many problems. Economists for the most part all know this. We certainly have to many taxes and grants and yeah some regulations are complete hose jobs.

Your argument is like my car doesn't need wheels because these wheels don't work and they sold me a lemon.

originally posted by: Dfairlite

originally posted by: luthier

originally posted by: Dfairlite

originally posted by: luthier

originally posted by: Dfairlite

originally posted by: ScepticScot
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.......

If a very smart, healthy, and wealthy person kills themselves, were they happy? Yet they'd tick all of the quality of life boxes for you.

Thats not the psychology at all. The suicide rates go up as society gets elevated. This is a very well studied phenomenon. Why are the suicide rates of horrible countries like Bulgaria lower than the US or Canada? Because those people are far too busy surviving and trying to feed themselves to be depressed and have time to think.

There are many issues even in your endocrine system that occur the easier life is. Especially the less physically active you are. Your glands need to produce the hormones they were made for and your body chemistry even. Even using your adrenaline is important.

So how does that translate to a high quality of life? I mean, is depression a better quality of life than surviving?

Does the suicide rate equal poverty rate?
Or wealth distribution, access to time off to be with your family etc? Nope.

How many people re we talking about comiting suicide compaired to living at a high standard.

Compaired to how many people live in poverty and struggle to get by without access to bettering themselves.

As people get higher on the quality of life scale they kill themselves more often. It's not linear, of course, but it flies in the face of the metric.

If people actually had a higher quality of life they would kill themselves at a lower rate.

This is a case where common sense doesn't equal the data. Seriously its been studied. Check it out.

originally posted by: TheBandit795

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...

So you believe that that everything good comes from what you agree with and everything bad from things you disagree. Even when they are part of the same system. Are you familiar with the term confirmation bias?

a reply to: Dfairlite

For a start you are comparing reported rates which can vary drastically across countries for a number of reasons (the obvious one being religion)
Actual rates will also vary hugely depending on a number of cultural and social factors not just economic.

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: TheBandit795

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...

So you believe that that everything good comes from what you agree with and everything bad from things you disagree. Even when they are part of the same system. Are you familiar with the term confirmation bias?

Austrian school economics are basically the church of Scientology of economics.

Their followers are zealots and it's it or nothing.

I agree with so many of Mises principles on a personal level. He just totally gets it wrong assuming the market is like a computer not a society of emotions trading goods.

originally posted by: ScepticScot
a reply to: Dfairlite

For a start you are comparing reported rates which can vary drastically across countries for a number of reasons (the obvious one being religion)
Actual rates will also vary hugely depending on a number of cultural and social factors not just economic.

There is a real increase kind of like we were made to struggle more physically. Anyway if the quality of life issue were truly able to be decerned this way Saudi Arabia would be close to the top right next to Iran.

originally posted by: luthier

originally posted by: Dfairlite

originally posted by: luthier

originally posted by: Dfairlite

originally posted by: luthier

originally posted by: Dfairlite

originally posted by: ScepticScot
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.......

If a very smart, healthy, and wealthy person kills themselves, were they happy? Yet they'd tick all of the quality of life boxes for you.

Thats not the psychology at all. The suicide rates go up as society gets elevated. This is a very well studied phenomenon. Why are the suicide rates of horrible countries like Bulgaria lower than the US or Canada? Because those people are far too busy surviving and trying to feed themselves to be depressed and have time to think.

There are many issues even in your endocrine system that occur the easier life is. Especially the less physically active you are. Your glands need to produce the hormones they were made for and your body chemistry even. Even using your adrenaline is important.

So how does that translate to a high quality of life? I mean, is depression a better quality of life than surviving?

Does the suicide rate equal poverty rate?
Or wealth distribution, access to time off to be with your family etc? Nope.

How many people re we talking about comiting suicide compaired to living at a high standard.

Compaired to how many people live in poverty and struggle to get by without access to bettering themselves.

As people get higher on the quality of life scale they kill themselves more often. It's not linear, of course, but it flies in the face of the metric.

If people actually had a higher quality of life they would kill themselves at a lower rate.

This is a case where common sense doesn't equal the data. Seriously its been studied. Check it out.

I have checked it out. No one knows the answer. The answer is that we will have to wait for more data. Or better interpreted: The data we have does not match. Calling something a quality of life indicator is setting the argument up on a false foundation. quality of life comes from so many aspects (probably hundreds or thousands of data points per individual) but these quality of life metrics rely on usually fewer than two dozen.

This means they aren't actually quality of life metrics. They are metrics of personal achievement. Personal achievement likely only makes up a small subset of a true quality of life metric.

originally posted by: Dfairlite

originally posted by: luthier

originally posted by: Dfairlite

originally posted by: luthier

originally posted by: Dfairlite

originally posted by: luthier

originally posted by: Dfairlite

originally posted by: ScepticScot
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.......

If a very smart, healthy, and wealthy person kills themselves, were they happy? Yet they'd tick all of the quality of life boxes for you.

Thats not the psychology at all. The suicide rates go up as society gets elevated. This is a very well studied phenomenon. Why are the suicide rates of horrible countries like Bulgaria lower than the US or Canada? Because those people are far too busy surviving and trying to feed themselves to be depressed and have time to think.

There are many issues even in your endocrine system that occur the easier life is. Especially the less physically active you are. Your glands need to produce the hormones they were made for and your body chemistry even. Even using your adrenaline is important.

So how does that translate to a high quality of life? I mean, is depression a better quality of life than surviving?

Does the suicide rate equal poverty rate?
Or wealth distribution, access to time off to be with your family etc? Nope.

How many people re we talking about comiting suicide compaired to living at a high standard.

Compaired to how many people live in poverty and struggle to get by without access to bettering themselves.

As people get higher on the quality of life scale they kill themselves more often. It's not linear, of course, but it flies in the face of the metric.

If people actually had a higher quality of life they would kill themselves at a lower rate.

This is a case where common sense doesn't equal the data. Seriously its been studied. Check it out.

I have checked it out. No one knows the answer. The answer is that we will have to wait for more data. Or better interpreted: The data we have does not match. Calling something a quality of life indicator is setting the argument up on a false foundation. quality of life comes from so many aspects (probably hundreds or thousands of data points per individual) but these quality of life metrics rely on usually fewer than two dozen.

This means they aren't actually quality of life metrics. They are metrics of personal achievement. Personal achievement likely only makes up a small subset of a true quality of life metric.

Thats actually false. In a society like the US the pressure to be succeful and achieve actually creates a suicidal framework. Your start up failed with your families life savings. Etc.

originally posted by: luthier

originally posted by: Dfairlite

originally posted by: luthier

originally posted by: Dfairlite

originally posted by: luthier

originally posted by: Dfairlite

originally posted by: luthier

originally posted by: Dfairlite

originally posted by: ScepticScot
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.......

If a very smart, healthy, and wealthy person kills themselves, were they happy? Yet they'd tick all of the quality of life boxes for you.

Thats not the psychology at all. The suicide rates go up as society gets elevated. This is a very well studied phenomenon. Why are the suicide rates of horrible countries like Bulgaria lower than the US or Canada? Because those people are far too busy surviving and trying to feed themselves to be depressed and have time to think.

There are many issues even in your endocrine system that occur the easier life is. Especially the less physically active you are. Your glands need to produce the hormones they were made for and your body chemistry even. Even using your adrenaline is important.

So how does that translate to a high quality of life? I mean, is depression a better quality of life than surviving?

Does the suicide rate equal poverty rate?
Or wealth distribution, access to time off to be with your family etc? Nope.

How many people re we talking about comiting suicide compaired to living at a high standard.

Compaired to how many people live in poverty and struggle to get by without access to bettering themselves.

As people get higher on the quality of life scale they kill themselves more often. It's not linear, of course, but it flies in the face of the metric.

If people actually had a higher quality of life they would kill themselves at a lower rate.

This is a case where common sense doesn't equal the data. Seriously its been studied. Check it out.

I have checked it out. No one knows the answer. The answer is that we will have to wait for more data. Or better interpreted: The data we have does not match. Calling something a quality of life indicator is setting the argument up on a false foundation. quality of life comes from so many aspects (probably hundreds or thousands of data points per individual) but these quality of life metrics rely on usually fewer than two dozen.

This means they aren't actually quality of life metrics. They are metrics of personal achievement. Personal achievement likely only makes up a small subset of a true quality of life metric.

Thats actually false. In a society like the US the pressure to be succeful and achieve actually creates a suicidal framework. Your start up failed with your families life savings. Etc.

What part of it is false? I agree with the rest of your statement, outside of the first sentence. Quality of life metrics are lacking for what they attempt to portray. The suicidal framework you point out would be a great part of a true quality of life metric.

originally posted by: Aazadan

originally posted by: ScepticScot
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.

A basic income creates jobs. If everyone has money to spend and they go spend it, businesses can't handle the volume, this forces them to bring on someone to work. That someone will need a wage they consider worth it. It results in a more market driven approach than we currently have where those at the bottom of the totem pole work mostly under duress and with no bargaining power.

I agree it does that. I just don't think it is the best way to do that.
A job guarantee scheme also creates minimum income for most, stabilises prices, provides useful labour for social projects, can improve skills of long term unemployed and is intrinsically counter cyclical.

originally posted by: Dfairlite

originally posted by: luthier

originally posted by: Dfairlite

originally posted by: luthier

originally posted by: Dfairlite

originally posted by: luthier

originally posted by: Dfairlite

originally posted by: luthier

originally posted by: Dfairlite

originally posted by: ScepticScot
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.......

If a very smart, healthy, and wealthy person kills themselves, were they happy? Yet they'd tick all of the quality of life boxes for you.

Thats not the psychology at all. The suicide rates go up as society gets elevated. This is a very well studied phenomenon. Why are the suicide rates of horrible countries like Bulgaria lower than the US or Canada? Because those people are far too busy surviving and trying to feed themselves to be depressed and have time to think.

There are many issues even in your endocrine system that occur the easier life is. Especially the less physically active you are. Your glands need to produce the hormones they were made for and your body chemistry even. Even using your adrenaline is important.

So how does that translate to a high quality of life? I mean, is depression a better quality of life than surviving?

Does the suicide rate equal poverty rate?
Or wealth distribution, access to time off to be with your family etc? Nope.

How many people re we talking about comiting suicide compaired to living at a high standard.

Compaired to how many people live in poverty and struggle to get by without access to bettering themselves.

As people get higher on the quality of life scale they kill themselves more often. It's not linear, of course, but it flies in the face of the metric.

If people actually had a higher quality of life they would kill themselves at a lower rate.

This is a case where common sense doesn't equal the data. Seriously its been studied. Check it out.

I have checked it out. No one knows the answer. The answer is that we will have to wait for more data. Or better interpreted: The data we have does not match. Calling something a quality of life indicator is setting the argument up on a false foundation. quality of life comes from so many aspects (probably hundreds or thousands of data points per individual) but these quality of life metrics rely on usually fewer than two dozen.

This means they aren't actually quality of life metrics. They are metrics of personal achievement. Personal achievement likely only makes up a small subset of a true quality of life metric.

Thats actually false. In a society like the US the pressure to be succeful and achieve actually creates a suicidal framework. Your start up failed with your families life savings. Etc.

What part of it is false? I agree with the rest of your statement, outside of the first sentence. Quality of life metrics are lacking for what they attempt to portray. The suicidal framework you point out would be a great part of a true quality of life metric.

I don't think so. It's personal factor and unknown. It's also a branch of freedom and mking bad choices that ruin your life. That doesn't mean the quality of life is bad in the society it means people are free to make bad choices. A country like Iran may not have a very high suicide rate but it comes from fear of God. Happiness that you could be right and is a very ambigous claim. A person's happiness is subjective and somewhat personal. But if you look t society s whole o guess you still see if the structure makes people happy or not regardless of quality of life or access to a high standard of living.