This conversation is closed. Start a new conversation
or join one »
Why Basic Income should become a Human Right
The U.S. Basic Income Network define Basic Income as, "...an unconditional, government-insured guarantee that all citizens will have enough income to meet their basic needs." http://basicincome.org/bien/aboutbasicincome.html
This program could eliminate poverty resulting in a more predictable and stable society as crime and violence would decay.
It could also move innovation beyond traditional employment as everyone would have access to the necessities of life by a basic income thus economic flexibility.
It could, in addition to deliberate automation, diminish the work hours for full-time employers, giving people more time to friends and family and activities that enrich their lives thus increasing quality of life.
It would in fact save significant costs by liquidating cumbersome and bureaucratic government agencies, to a much simpler program that could be automated.
Furthermore, since there is no means test; the richest as well as the poorest citizens would receive it which could manifest a positive psychological effect in people to spend less and appreciate leisure, which is ultimately good for the environment.
An example of a 'mini-basic income' is the Permanent Fund Dividend which in an annual individual payout to Alaskans. Though the payout is relatively small and only annually distributed, it still goes to show that this kind of program is being used today: http://pfd.alaska.gov
Research from Namibia revealed that the introduction of a Basic Income Guarantee (BIG) led to an increase in economic activity which contradicts critics' claims that the BIG will lead to laziness and dependency. Learn more about it here: http://bignam.org
Namibia had amazing results in a number of other things as well, namely poverty reduction, which is a pivotal point in and of itself, and a reduction in crime rate by 40%. Now, imagine what a global basic income guarantee could do.
Daryl Roche
Mats Kaarbö 10+
Manish Kumar Aggarwal
This right must be the qualified...qualification can be different as per the physical and social systems...for example: education, promoting in social or global cause, doing some research, research and development, old age, handicap etc.etc...
I strongly feel the poverty as more psychological than physical curse except few exceptions...
We remove poverty by providing opportunity to work, not by providing not to work...
Guarantee to a working hand, really working...
With regards
Francisco Correa
elizabeth muncey 10+
elizabeth muncey 10+
Mitch SMith 50+
To defeat the valley of shadow, one must keep moving.
I get a little uncomfortable when people speak about "rights".
"rights" are ideals and, as such, infer that the current state is less than ideal.
Seems reasonable. But if the underlying dynamic does not produce these "rights" as a matter of course, then one is left with 2 options - either one tweaks the existing system to move the outcome towards the ideal, or one re-structures the system so that tweaking is not necessary.
The "tweaking" option is similar to "Cutting the Gordian Knot" .. but in a systemic sense, this knot is self-tying, and self-reconstructing .. hence, the cutting becomes an infinite task. Such "rights" can only be supported through continuous effort. Anything that requires chronic attention gives rise to specialist attendants. We call these specialists police, lawyers, judges and politicians - all of whom are particularly susceptible to corruption.
So .. when you move to enforce "rights" you actually throw open the doors to corruption - by increasing the domain of the "rights" specialists and enforcers. In a way, formal "rights" has exactly the oposite affect of the intention.
The systemic re-build is indicated whenever you see these specialist coalesce - all result in facism.
If there is a dynamic which produces unconditional suport for individuals in teh community, then the way to get these "rights" achieved is to remove any impediment to the existing dynamic.
It just so happens that there is such a dynamic - it is broadly called "love". I like to call it "symetrical quadrad convergence" .. so - to get your "rights" I'd suggest it is more effective to look at what factors are oposing "love" - you will find your answer there.
elizabeth muncey 10+
Mitch SMith 50+
The thing to do is always right in your sight.
Talking is stopping. Good place to visit, but not stay.
We get lost in our extrinsic networks - all our forcasts are wrong, and wronger as they go further into the non-existent future. They only achieve rightness as they enter the senses - now.
Being found is feet on the ground moving - litteraly.
John Dunbar 10+
Mitch SMith 50+
I have been directed to the work of neuro scientist Liz Pinal at University of Vermont.
She seems to concur with my observation of dyad pairs operating in the autobiographical self.
My observation hypothesyses "quadrads" - I talk about it often in these discussions.
So - for every person you meet, you create 2 autobiographical selves - one to represent "I" and one to represent "other". The other also does this - this results in 4 A-selves (a "quadrad"). These A-selves are initially copies of the core self - plus a delta(change set) that is an accumulated "causal" map that represents the agregation of "expectations" - one set for "self", one set for "others". The A-selves are then run through the general "world view" map which is a conglomerate of cuasal and physical maps in various states of completion. The completion component of any particular map fragment depends on the synaptic strength attachment to associated maps that have deeply long-term potentiation. This allows the perception of uncertainty. Now, if a deeply potentiated association happens to contain an erroneous assumption (e.g. "god" or "free market") then everything associated with it will inherit the same false certainty.
Each A-self in the quadrad begins with the default model and casts a "forecast" which is then measured for error in observation. The error is applied to a specific delta refining it to closer accuracy (Bayesian learning).
In the quadrad Me(Me,You) and You(You,Me) - lets call them a, b, c, d respectively - the Bayesian learning produces a convergence between ad and bc - if you drew it as corners of a square these convergences are diagonal.
With on-going experience between the me and you, these diagonals can potentially converge to exactly the same place. But the resulting convergence can be different for each diagonal pair (continued)
Mitch SMith 50+
So the diagonal convergence can come to conclusion with a/d b/c in exactly the same place (symmetrical) or in different places (asymmetrical).
OK - now we look at another intra-personal dynamic: advantage.
Advantage is best described as a "field". It is the subset of the field of potential agency - that has causal maps which lead to convergence in the internal milieu (represented by the proto self). Conversely, the field of disadvantage is the subset that leads to divergence in the proto self.
Now lets look at the game dynamics win/lose and win/win (assuming that lose/lose is rejected by both).
These options have practical value depending on the frame set by the ambient environment.
In time of scarcity, win/lose is appropriate (competition).
In times of abundance, win/win is appropriate (cooperation).
However, the win/win dynamic has an emergent property - it increases abundance.
It follows that competition will result in an asymmetrical convergence of A-selves - cooperation will result in symmetric convergence.
Symetry/asymmetry define the absolute vector of left/right politics. Erroneous world view will exacerbate assymetry - even in the face of abundance.
When confronted with an asymmetric convergence, one must look at the state of abundance before attempting conflict. It is clear that inappropriate competition wil damage the abundance, and that inapropriate cooperation will damage the survival of the few.
Under this scenario, I see that the Namibian BIG program is cooperation supportive and, if appropriate, will lead to greater abundance in Namibia.
Ambient abundance will tend to disolve erroneous world views over time. However, if competitive "latch-up" occurs due to an erroneous world-view, then artificial scarcity will arise.
In times of abundance, there is no need for currency - the beans do not need to be counted.
I could go on, but you get the gist?
John Dunbar 10+
What i commonly see and have noted in myself is when starting on a false premise and a certain expectation of the other individual I tend to retreat to extremity. I noticed this with my father who when entering a debate with a family member would almost always retreat to reading right wing political works. However he only did this when he was at a loss for words. The argument was not so much about politics but more so about proving himself intelligent or correct in his assumptions. I think it needs to be noted that upon entertaining surface debates we open ourselves up to the effects of competition rather than the effects of mutual understanding and acceptance. I notice you at times cite Lakoff. He puts it very well that conservatives are not irrational they have a logic system that although is based on continuing cyclical abuse, makes perfect sense to them. If you notice on my profile page I put forth an idea that is old and important. The healthy and unhealthy mind reaches its conclusions the exact same way, through a logic system confined to the pleasure principle. It is more complicated than that but I think its a fair enough statement.
What I mean to say is that if proper debate is not formulated on a rational bedrock debating the issue has been lost from the start and all we see is a clash of primitime competitive forces wishing to assert dominance
John Dunbar 10+
Mitch SMith 50+
I think you've pretty much nailed it.
But there is slightly more depth to the picture.
The key is the appropriate application of competition/cooperation.
One has to ask "where is the scarcity?" before undertaking competition.
In males, one would not be surprised to find that, in most cases, the only extant scarcity happens to be one particular female. It's not so primative when it happens to every male human during puberty. I observe a similar dynamic in females .. but I cannot speak for them.
The very idea that all critical thinking requires debate is also problematic. Debate is a form of competition. Critical thinking requires nothing more than observation. This is what I call "grounding".
We humans are not very good at comprehending non-linear phenomena.
The retreat to extremity is an attempt to assert self-image.
The cyclic abuse you identify is not so much direct physical or psychological violation - it manifests in the very framework of the common world-view. e.g. adversarial law and political systems, assumptions about "human nature" etc.
Anything that assumes a state of abundance/scarcity without direct observation is a falacious stance.
John Dunbar 10+
This is true and now you have directed me down a differing rabbit hole. I must now attempt to define what I mean by "primitive". I guess I mean pre societal, mainly forces which humans have deemed to be destructive to civilization. Maybe its from reading to much Freud, but i sometimes place a bit of mysticism into the unconscious forces. After reading his books I find it difficult to not see the world the way he portrays it(in a very linear way). I notice a thread in much of your writing Mitch, you seem to be always looking in fractals and I cant say I blame you tis a beautiful lens to look through. Either way, you are right the male teenagers hormones rage and his frontal lobe has not reached full development, hence: a recipe for impulse control issues. But are these forces primitive? I guess they are only primitive in the sense that society has been trying to wrangle and control them for years. "Civilization began the first an angry person cast a word instead of a rock"- Freud
I think you are right about debate and I have noticed this may have been the root cause of the breakup of my philosophy group which I formed. Sides were being taken and it eventually lost its muster and faded(although it has just recently reassembled with new and old members). When we had discussion and sharing of ideas we made real progress, far more progress than in any school setting.
I think what you are getting at is that by integrating a world view or accepting a view consciously or unconsciously we can absorb its falsehoods and that the only real way to deviate from asymmetry in your model is to offer ideas that have been formed from your own experience? I think much training goes into alleviating what we already know. The idea you present is one i have been and maybe always will be fighting to keep, at least on some level.
-Brian
Mitch SMith 50+
Lots of historical ambiguity in that word. I think appropriately so.
We are an odd species, we apes. The extended gestation afforded by mammalian birth extended to 14 years presents an interesting notion of what happens first (primary, prior). Quick-maturity animals do not get such an extensive holiday from sexual competition. During that holiday, the human ape gets to develop a broader range of interactions - to discover the power of cooperation as well as competition. Then the great puberty synapse cull shreds anything that has not fully potentiated.
One wonders if the habitually competitive simply never left puberty.
Once mated and mature, the human ape should no longer need competition .. that the opportunity for inapropriate competition is fueled by artificial scarcities of non-essential commodities - to keep the big kids entertained and blissfully divided?
I think Freud was wrong - to me, it is evident that civillisation started with farming, and then stopped when humans started farming each other.
There's some bad old trauma lurking back 10,000 years .. possibly a harm that is still in the process of healing. But then, we see the same dynamic in baboons and chimps .. oddly not bonobos. The prevalence of inapropriate competitive behaviour seems to have a latch-up dynamic - as observed in Sapolski's baboon troop when all the alpha males got killed by tainted meat on a garbage-tip: how, in the absence of dominance/competition-driven social structure, the troop flourished way beyond the success rate of surrounding groups.
I'd like to get hold of the math that read Montaigne developed for his "dyad" model of interpersonal dynamics - then plug them into my quadrad model and see what species of convergence occur.
John Dunbar 10+
Ive tried to put it into an intelligible theory but it does not really add up. So I view it as a myth with which i was allowed the pleasure to see. The myth expressed your exact idea and I think its probably true.
Mitch SMith 50+
Yes - it's fascinating!
I normally don't entertain external agencies as part of the dynamic .. species pride I suppose ;)
But try this one - the meeting between homo sapiens and neanderthal?
The inference is a ring species divergence, but the evidence of interbreeding seems to imply that the divergence was not quite complete.
So who enslaved who?
This would have to be backed-up by some historical study, but: is there a correlation between the practice of slavery and the presence of neaderthal genes?
I have another conjecture that might have cogence. We view speciation as a divergent branching system, however, there is no corrollary with convergent symbiosis.
Convergence is clear in the very old evidence of evolution. My conjecture is that collaberative symbiots gradually converge. That there is a step-wise pattern with the symbiots getting closer until they eventually occupy the same skin. I point to the symbiotic relationships: man/dog, man/worm man/bacteria, man/virus.
With man/virus actually unifying in the DNA.
It is also tempting to give creedence to some ot the old catastrophe myths - these might also point to some ancient harm .. but, the slavery event seems a whole lot more powerful in the social dynamic.
Many thanks for your insight!
Fritzie Reisner 100+
This was supposed to be a response to John, but for some reason I can't delete and put it in the right place. Sorry, Mats.
Comment deleted
John Smith 30+
The truth is most people don't work just to cover their necessities, most don't steal for that goal either, but the ones that do cause excessive damage. No country needs a 100% labor force participation rate to function, most developed countries are doing just fine at around 60% and even that figure includes a lot of police/prison personnel and other civil servants that would be redundant when the basic living income drastically lowers crime and simplifies social programs. In addition, all kinds of entertainers, artists and athletes would stop being paid employees without ceasing to do what they were doing before. Not to mention all the laborers who can be replaced by robots and the financial thugs who can be eliminated through a more sensible economic system and all the nannies who look after the children of these people, and so on...
The worst thing that could happen is that several percent of the labor force stopped working, that would by no means spell the end of civilization, in fact it's likely we'd barely miss them at all.
Mats Kaarbö 10+
Bipedal Joe
Anyone fix a basic income in their community yet? #peerprogressive
http://bit.ly/R9X4vz
Join our facebook-group towards Basic Incomes in every European country, Germany putting it to election 2013? http://www.facebook.com/groups/116444231839732/
Mitch SMith 50+
It sounds pretty good, but you have to go down the hole with any proposal and see how it works in the minute detail.
Firstly, you might need to state the purpose of the proposed system clearly.
For many, there is no need to change anything - they are doing fine, and will not be interested in change - and will oppose it. So, your purpose has to be compelling enough to overcome that resistance.
Then, if it seems desirable, the method will be examined.
The major opposition to granted income is the concept that income constitutes the entirety of motivation. This dicates that no one will work if they are rewarded without working. This is very easy to demonstrate and becomes a total show-stopper for anyone seeking change.
However, the demonstrations of monetary reward apply only to reciprocity.
Humans have capacity for more modes of interaction - we also have dominance, leadership and communality - each of which operate on a different motivation.
It is also demonstrated that monetary reward does not work well for inovation or creative work. It has a definite motivation up to the point of needs after which it actually supresses motivation.
Then you must consider the impact of supplying endless money into a community - it would probably create hyper-inflation. The reason it does this is because money does not decay while real value does decay - and requires continual renewal.
So, any such community benevolence flow would need to be reduced to match real value. One way to do that is to tax accounts on a daily basis - the taxed money is not used by the government - it is simply deleted. The level of money-decay would be adjusted to reflect real current value. Not sure how you would do that .. seems do-able with computers. An affect of reducing currency in accounts is that it would induce circulation - you would want to spend it before it gets taxed to nothing. This would have a deflationary affect while still stimulating trade.
Mats Kaarbö 10+
Firstly, you might need to state the purpose of the proposed system clearly.
For many, there is no need to change anything - they are doing fine, and will not be interested in change - and will oppose it. So, your purpose has to be compelling enough to overcome that resistance.
Then, if it seems desirable, the method will be examined."
Thanks, Mitch. I appreciate any constructive feedback and it really helps me in terms of communicating. I've now, hopefully, made it simpler and more compelling to read and have included some references.
Mitch SMith 50+
Many thanks!
Are there any corresponding inflation figures for the Namibian experiment?
Mats Kaarbö 10+
Hope this helps.
Mats Kaarbö 10+
Namibia had amazing results in a number of other things as well, namely poverty reduction, which is a pivotal point in and of itself, and a reduction in crime rate by 40%.
pat gilbert 50+
I applaud your looking at something besides conjecture.
But Namibia I would guess may be on a sugar high from the government spending. Over the long haul or even not so long haul. If you look at the link below it illustrates that they improved in 09-11 but have taken a dive this year. They have high levels of corruption, high taxes, and low regard for private property. I would guess their one saving grace is that they are rich in natural resources. Otherwise they have not accommodated the 6 killer apps required to have a healthy economy.
http://www.heritage.org/index/country/namibia
Also this a very small country of 2 million in which money that is acquired only has to be divided by 2 million. There are 3 million people in the county I live in.
Mats Kaarbö 10+
In actuality, I did include, when I started this conversation, a relevant TED talk in the description that is highly relevant (and which I partly use to support my claims) on why a Basic Income should become a human right. I highly recommend watching it if you haven't already. Wilkinson's brilliant talk on how equal societies usually have a lower rate of poverty, crime and mental disorders and an increase in overall happiness and the willing to share and collaborate, is based on deep and unbiased research and he also wrote a book on this issue, which I also highly recommend; "The Spirit Level: Why More Equal Societies Almost Always Do Better".
pat gilbert 50+
John Smith 30+
Since the BIG was introduced in 2002 Namibia has not fallen behind South Africa in GDP growth. This means that the BIG had no adverse effect on GDP growth while it definitely raised the living standard for many people.
"They have high levels of corruption, high taxes, and low regard for private property."
They had a GDP/capita of less than $1500 in 2002 (four times lower than South Africa's GDP at the time), why do you expect them to become Switzerland in 10 years? South Africa has all of the same problems, probably even worse when it comes to crime. Corruption wise the two countries rank the same, even though South Africa is richer.
"Also this a very small country of 2 million in which money that is acquired only has to be divided by 2 million. There are 3 million people in the county I live in."
This matters how exactly?
I advise you to look into labor force participation rate statistics for countries with extensive welfare programs (that you can actually live off, sort of) like Sweden and the Netherlands. Believe it or not but there are many, many people in the world who work even though they don't really have to and get a sh*tty pay for sh*tty or hard work, there are also people who are multi-millionaires but still show up at some office every morning. Most people are not as lazy as you think, or at least they have some other motivations besides paying for necessities (sense of pride, wanting to make more than some basic minimum, wanting to contribute, the social interactions of the work place, wanting to live up to expectations of loved ones, wanting to build a bigger business than the competition, the fun/satisfaction of the job itself, wanting to impress a love interest, etc...)
Mats Kaarbö 10+
I would, however, agree that the Western world's scientific revolution and the advent of modern medicine did play a part on positive technological advances in terms of health and automation, but I would at the same time argue that the progress of technological advances would have increased exponentially if property rights were replaced with public ownership or at least much more regulated to benefit the people and that collaboration was cherished instead of competition.
Furthermore, the work ethics was never incentivized, but forced. People had to work for the necessities of life, because they had no land to grow their own food. The robber barons took it all. That's what happens in a free market and that is why billions of people around the world live in poverty.
pat gilbert 50+
I don't of any one in the U.S. who was forced to work. Can you site some proof of this?
Mats Kaarbö 10+
Sure, people in North America was given land in return for their effort, but that in and of itself doesn't automatically lead to prosperity. Furthermore, GDP doesn't show the prosperity level of most people within a nation, it only displays the value of goods and services being made within that nation. So, if you have a robber baron elite class that is owning and controlling the production and distribution of all goods and services produced within a nation and which is consuming most of the stuff because they have the purchasing power to do so, it doesn't matter how many working class people get to own land as long as the elite own the production and distribution facilities, ergo it is false reflection of the prosperity level for most people in the Western world.
"I don't of any one in the U.S. who was forced to work. Can you site some proof of this?"
Well, people are indirectly forced to work, if they don't have any land to begin with, in order to survive. Of course, if you don't want to submit to labor, you could always "choose" to lay down and die. But is that really a choice? No, that's called conditioning as a result of the free market.
pat gilbert 50+
Of all the significant discoveries in the last 100 years or so how many of them came from the evil free market? How many came from the noble socialist governments?
Mats Kaarbö 10+
What proof are you seeking?
"Of all the significant discoveries in the last 100 years or so how many of them came from the evil free market? How many came from the noble socialist governments?"
I do agree that the Western world's scientific revolution and the advent of modern medicine did play a part on positive technological advances in terms of health and automation, but I don't believe that technological innovations is based on what economic model you have in a region, but rather the values of that population. In other words, the Eastern world could have just as easily discovered and done the same things the Western world did, if not more, but was held back by superstition and doctrines. The scientific revolution in the West, partly, moved the Western world out of this superstition and opened up for the advent of technological innovations. But it wasn't the free market that did that, it was the scientists and researchers who discovered and invented and ultimately the values of the population that allowed for this to continue.
pat gilbert 50+
Mats Kaarbö 10+
pat gilbert 50+
An extra ration of Vodka?
In the free market you get what people will exchange with you for your product. The google guys invented a better search engine they were almost instant billionaires, same with Bill Gates, same with Stephen Jobs, same with the guy who figured out how to turn E coli into insulin, same with guy who came up with pay pal, But you know where the most millionaires are made? in real estate. All of the above is private property and that is the difference.
Mats Kaarbö 10+
pat gilbert 50+
A point of fact is that most of the people in the upper quin tile of income don't stay there for long. So those rich folks you refer to are a ever changing group.
John Smith 30+
Mats Kaarbö 10+
Mitch SMith 50+
Or are you trying to find a way to help the black boys escape from someone's plantation?
Sometimes wire cutters work better than words.
pat gilbert 50+
Do a search on where any major invention came from. They rarely come from a country that does not have property rights.
This is obvious for anyone to see. The only way you couldn't see this is you have your eyes closed.
pat gilbert 50+
"Because most people who are in the top 1 percent in a given year do not stay in that bracket over the years."
"Only 5 percent of those in the bottom quintile in 1975 were still there in 1991, while 29 percent of them were now in the top quintile."
http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/282503/who-s-top-1-percent-thomas-sowell?pg=2#
pat gilbert 50+
How many of the 1% inherited their money, made their fortunes with a sizable trust fund, or made their money manipulating the financial system, without adding anything to the general welfare of the state?
New York University economist Edward Wolff has done the best work I’ve seen on the contribution of inheritance to wealth inequality, and his latest paper, coauthored with the Bureau of Labor Statistics’ Maury Gittleman, is chock full of relevant data on the matter. In 2007, the last year Wolff and Gittleman look at, wealth transfers (mainly inheritances, but also including gifts) made up, on average, 14.7 percent of the total wealth of the 1 percent (more specifically, the top 1 percent in terms of wealth). Interestingly, inheritance’s share has declined over time. In 1992, 27 percent of the wealth of the top 1 percent came from wealth transfers.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/ezra-klein/post/research-desk-did-the-top-1-percent-inherit-its-wealth/2011/11/04/gIQA4T8kmM_blog.html
John Smith 30+
In other words, we have to weigh a small minority of the population abusing a basic income by never working (although a social draft could partially solve this problem) against an undeserving financial elite usurping much of society's resources and taking irresponsible risks with other people's resources, veterans eating out of dumpsters and people who work 40 hours per week not being able to afford health care and education for their kids.
Mats Kaarbö 10+
John Smith 30+
@John Moonstroller
Since it would be mandatory for everyone, before a certain age, I do not think it would be necessary to use voting rights as an incentive. I don't think the social draft will contribute more to society if everyone completed their service at an early age to get voting rights. The mandatory nature of the draft ensures that everyone will serve eventually, so you can provide voting rights to people who have not served yet and choose to pursue an education first.
John Moonstroller 20+
Mats Kaarbö 10+
The children will eventually realize that the only way a society can take care of them is if they care of the society thus participating in it.
Casey Christofaris 10+
Mats Kaarbö 10+
Casey Christofaris 10+
John Smith 30+
John Dunbar 10+
This is true, what is also true is that this thing you provide that people need can be created. In fact from my experience a large amount of our industry is based not based on things people need but things that the companies who market them want you to need. Do you need nike shoes? Of course you don't, the whole idea behind a capitalist society is to create a culture that rewards those who are wealthy, with reverence and praise, even if the nike shoes they happen to own were made by a wage slave or child labor. In america we have a culture that praises those who wear name brand clothing, drive high priced cars, and hold positions of power over others. From where I stand its all part of a large scheme to get people to do work they hate so they can buy stuff that is unnecessary and unimportant. This is the nature of capitalism, it reduces mans value to that of a dog. The dog who needs to be trained with treats to do the right thing. This of course is the reigning sentiment among those in power in the United States and has been for years. Why is it do you think corporations spend massive sums of money on marketing and pr campaigns with psychologists on staff? The goal is to coerce people into believing that there bank account and possessions is a reflection of their self worth.
The profit motive alone is also why you see bubbles as well as the near systemic collapse in 2008. Now, you are right that this is all dependent on a free market, a market that allows companies to fail so as to bring balance to absurd risk taking. Problem is we don't have that in the United States, the saying goes "too big to fail, too big to jail".
Ken brown 30+
pat gilbert 50+
But I will add that young Edward Bernays learned well from uncle Sigmund about how to manipulate which was used by none other than the highly dubious character name Woodrow Wilson, of whom the communist countries said they learned everything they know about propaganda from Wilson. Apparently this manipulation thing was not exclusive to the big evil corporations, of which very few of them still exist. But the gifts that Wilson left us are the gift that keeps on giving.
John Dunbar 10+
Im sure the communists gained much from Bernays and Wilson after all Stalin was praised by Truman and others, they did not think the country would become outwardly aggressive or attempt to spread their style of government. Like I said in my previous post Communism was sold to their people based on the morality of taking care of everyone in a society, but used as tool for domination and control. Common theme in history; find out what the people want and use this to keep them subdued, apathetic, powerless. So long as guys like Bernays and his future minions exist the demand from the people will be to have rulers.
pat gilbert 50+
Can you give some specific links regarding fast Eddy staring wars. Since Wilson and FDR were related I can see the connection on how both of them subjugated the constitution to their ignorant egos.
I will add that those big evil corporations are what gives you the standard of living, a better standard of living than kings of yesteryear, that you enjoy now so don't bite too hard on the hand that has raised your standard living. And NO it is not the government that has done this.
Krisztián Pintér 200+
Krisztián Pintér 200+
1. companies can manufacture need, so people buy what they don't need. i especially like that gem: "coerce people into believing".
2. capitalism rewards the wealthy
3. people have jobs they don't like, as they are "slaves to the system" in which "bank account and possessions is a reflection of self worth"
4. bubbles are created by profit motive.
there is so much other, minor things wrong with your post, it is impossible to fit into 2000 characters, and neither it is necessary. they are all were addressed zillions of times already. in a nutshell, and focusing only on those 4:
1. no, it is not as easy to manufacture need. if it would be so easy, why don't we just manufacture good needs? why "bad" companies get rich? maybe it has to do something with some ideas sell well, others don't. you can only "manufacture" need that people already have on their own. you can exploit stupidity and shortsightedness, but you can't create them. but even if you could, it would lead to the question: so what? who are you to judge what people want? who are you to say wanting a nike is not a valid goal in life? who are you to shepherd people?
2. in capitalism, wealth is the reward for serving wants. if you enjoy your wealth, you enjoy the fruits of your efforts to bring satisfaction to the people.
3. if you live in such a world, i understand your frustration. but none of my acquaintances believe that bank account is related to worth. everyone i know is perfectly clear on the concept that wealth is enjoyable, and so they want it. and it is a perfectly valid point.
4. profit motive suddenly disappears from time to time? or how would that lead to bubbles? it is so no-brainer it boggles the mind. no surprise, nobody ever attempted to show how the free market leads to bubbles. it can't. only credit expansion can. and who is responsible for credit expansion? that's right. not the free market.
John Dunbar 10+
"We must shift America from a needs- to a desires-culture. People must be trained to desire, to want new things, even before the old have been entirely consumed. [...] Man's desires must overshadow his needs"-Paul Mazer Lehman Brothers 1930
Capitalism plays on the idea that people should be as naturally selfish as possible living only to serve their own needs. This is the bag of goods capitalism jammed down the throat of the american public. How much sense does that make. it flies directly in the face of every model that explains why society began in the first place, its a fast road to hedonism and slow road to the destruction of the species. Nike is a valid goal in life? This again is another goal of capitalism to push people into seeking the superficial things in life. Who are you to support a system that seeks to exploit others and then claim your just giving the people what they want?
2. Your efforts to serve wants are created wants they are meant to do as i stated above exploit desires such as laziness, greed, superficial pleasures.
3.Come to the United States and you will see a culture absolutely engulfed in this idea, that wealth equates to the measure of a man. Even if it did not (which it does) it still equates to the power of an individual and subverts democratic interest.
4. Where has the free market ever existed? Not in the United States, times of the least regulation have lead to the great depression and the recent mortgage bubble. Also the free market is not wanted by big business they need the nanny state, under reagan, thatcher, clinton, Bush, Obama there have been major state subsidies for coroporations as well reinforcements from government so as to get people to invest. Of course the idea from big business is that we need the nanny state so we can take massive risk with high reward, if it almost leads to systemic collapse, well who cares.
Krisztián Pintér 200+
2. laziness, greed and superficial pleasures might be disgusting to you, but please leave me alone with your moral. i like laziness, i think there is a healthy level of greed, and pleasure can't be too much. if you disagree, you are welcome to follow your values, let me follow mine.
3. i don't believe you, you can't just get away with an unbacked claim by referring to the distance. i believe i know the american culture well enough to say: american people are treating wealth as what it is. means to have the stuff you want, and nothing else.
4. the free market never existed in pure form, but it existed in a much less disturbed form. you should know, one of the purest forms of it existed in the US, during the 1800's, and to some degree, the beginning of the 1900's. but it does not really matter. we were talking about bubbles and what cause them. you can tell me no rational argument how the free market causes bubbles. i, on the contrary, can tell you arguments how fractional reserve banking caused them. and i can also make the case for how governments made the situation much worse. again, it is true that big companies want to use tax money to save themselves. but this desire is not the problem. the problem is that governments make it possible. there is no insurance against failure on the free market. but there is if you have a corrupt government.
John Dunbar 10+
2. Never said laziness, greed and superficial pleasures are disgusting. I said these qualities in spades will destroy civilization. My guess is you don't like those qualities in those who receive state welfare? Maybe I'm wrong? Never tried to police morality just stating that those qualities fly in the face of most models that explain how civilization formed. That is, civilization was formed so as to keep people safe among the herd, to survive employing principles of solidarity and community.
3.Krisztian, your just flat out wrong, maybe its more my generation thats a possibility, but trust me when I say American culture equates worth to money as well as power, or at least wants you to embrace this ideal.
4.Yes it did almost exist during the time of robber barons and rampant wage slavery. The free market causes bubbles because of the system of greed. You can blame it on whatever you want at the end of the day it is a result of some form of unbalanced greed. You can make the free market argument and talk about how it naturally balances itself but I'm aware of no real world model where this has been true. Government is the problem because they give big business what it is they demand? Your answer seems to be that government influence corrupts markets therefore do away with government and open up to corporate tyranny. Corporations are structurally the opposite of democracy.
Krisztián Pintér 200+
2. laziness and all such things are with us since the beginning, and did not destroy us. unless you can show how they will, i'm going with they don't. all we need is a feedback mechanism. you can be lazy, if you can afford it. if you can't, soon, hunger will convince you that laziness should be limited. that is why freedom and capitalism solves such problems. and that's why states' "safety" measures make them worse.
3. i still don't believe you, and i think you are fighting shadows or ghosts here.
4. the fact that you use the phrase "robber baron" shows how few you know about that period, and how much of it comes from marxist sources. i'm not metaphorical. you refer to literal marxian teachings. the robber barons did not rob anyone, and they lacked any sort of legal support from the powers-that-be that real barons got. rockefeller's life was one of constant innovation. he single handedly delivered lighting to most american households. maybe he manufactured the need for lighting? maybe we should just go to sleep when the sun sets.
finally, you got something right though. corporations are the opposite of democracy. as democracy is coercion. democracy is the opposite of freedom and personal responsibility.
pat gilbert 50+
John Dunbar 10+
2. Of course laziness has been with us since the dawn of man, so has rape, murder, robbery and many other impulses society has outlawed in an attempt to live together. The forming of society from a Freudian perspective states that society was built on a renunciation of instinct, among them is greed. You do not exploit your family so as to gain wealth if you do its considered criminal. In a primitive society greed, laziness, and selfishness would get you quickly exiled. The idea is community beliefs to behave in a way that helps the community, not just selfish unenlightened interest.
3. Your arguing against my subjective experiences, your response is pointless uninformed conjecture. Ever here of reaction formation, its a good explanation of Ayn Rands lunacy.
4. Marxist sources, which ones? The robber barons of the early 20th century did everything they could to destroy labor rights. This includes murder in some cases. Give me one example where a true free market existed and didn't collapse in on itself. The labor movements fought for rights and brought us a standard of living. Rockefeller may have brought lights to the people but his motives were not to help others, but to gain wealth if they weren't he wouldn't have stood in the way of the most basic human rights.
Democracy is coercion, but playing on peoples fears and changing peoples valuations isn't? What is freedom to you? I must here this. What is your understanding of democracy, we cant even begin to exchange ideas if terms have no meaning.
Krisztián Pintér 200+
2. missed the point yet again. 11th time: it does not matter what urges are with us. what matters is what we do with them. you claimed that laziness will kill us. even rape and murder did not end mankind, and they are way worse. personal responsibility and cooperation between people keeps bad things in check. without some ph.d.-s or self proclaimed moralist telling us what to do.
3. your subjective experiences are in contradiction with mine. bring heavier arguments. how ayn rand came here is beyond me.
4. in a free society, there are no labor rights. workers has the same rights as anyone else: property rights, human rights, etc. labor rights is a creation of states. cite your sources for that alleged murder. let me guess, you will cite some case in which violent rioters were shot. guess what, violence is not a labor right, even in our wicked legal system. and yet again, you are talking about motivation. i could not care less. for all i care, rockefeller could be the devil himself. if a prime minister is devil's incarnate, that is a problem. but if a capitalist is evil, it poses no threat in any way. what he does, helped people. if he would not help people, he would not have became rich. that is the power of capitalism. it rewards cooperation, and punishes failure.
you apparently don't understand "coercion". playing on people's fear is not coercion. also "coercing into believing". you somehow confuse coercion with influence. they are very different.
democracy is this: majority can coerce the minority in any way they desire.
Mitch SMith 50+
It's pointless to practice the "rational actor" scenario with some people.
Arguement can become infinite whilever the predicate lies buried beyond the illusion of rationality.
If your oponent had an abusive father, we cannot fix that by debate.
But we can point out the dynamic and shift the discussion to root causes.
The other tack is to keep demonstrating the flaws in social customs and value systems.
My insight is that closed systems lead to critical concentrations - these concentrations eventally burn-out the closed system. What we call the "open market" would work brilliantly if it was open - but it is not. This is not because of restrictions imposed by governments, nor by manipualtions of businesss. Closedness is the very nature of the system itself.
My experience in business at all levels confirms what you have said - even down to creating systems to forecast fashion and perception in the marketplace. Everyone knows the profit motive - it never even needs to be said - and the whole of corporate organisations strive for it from top to bottom. The directors of companies set the ethic of the company, some are responsible, some are not. All are ruthless. They have to be, because they carry the responsibility for the employees, the shareholders, the customers, the creditors and the entire value supply network that makes it possible.
And, oh yes, power corrupts. I have seen good men take advantage of their power - diverting value for self-enrichment. The upper echelons of business and power are rife with this - it is almost expected, but the rule is "don't get caught".
The dynamic of closed hierarchies dictates that the winners are the most effective at not getting caught. Man, you should see the millions being spent in the battles between these guys - just to try to catch each other out. I wouldn't mind that so much, except that it's company money being used for it.
We don't need debate, we need nurturing parent schools.
John Smith 30+
This is really misleading. Any market (not necessarily "free" ones) that allows for speculation can and will experience bubbles at some point. It is very much about greed because it is a glorified casino where you wager that you can sell off your "investment" before too many other people sell theirs. It has nothing to do with "credit expansion" (I can assure you no central bank existed anywhere in the world during the "Tulip bubble" of the 1630s), just human nature. Bubbles are mathematically possible in a 100% pure free market and would surely occur in it because there will always be people who want to make a quick buck without working for it and are willing to take risks for that. Gambling has always been part of human nature and always will be.
@below
Gold certificates were issued by individuals and organizations who were not backed or licensed by the government, so it was a free market. I think I know where you are coming from though, because without money expansion a bubble would cause deflation on all other goods and services, which would reduce the incentive to participate in a bubble, but as long as the bubble "contains" less than half the capital in the economy it is possible to make a profit on it. Since a bubble that affects half of all capital would still have a pretty devastating effect on the economy I wouldn't say getting rid of money expansion (which can't be done in a free market because some people would choose to deal in currencies that are subject to expansion) solves the problem.
Krisztián Pintér 200+
at least you claim so. but you have no arguments for that. i have arguments for my view. extensive use of the word "mathematics" does not constitute an argument.
"(I can assure you no central bank existed"
which does not matter, because credit expansion existed as soon as gold certificates appeared, due to the first debated, but later accepted fractional reserve. and money base expansion happened even before that, when kings diluted/clipped gold coins. and bubbles are in essence caused by money expansion, not necessarily credit expansion. but historical bubbles where nothing compared to the expansion central banks can unleash.
Feyisayo Anjorin 50+
Mats Kaarbö 10+
Arkady Grudzinsky 50+
Mats Kaarbö 10+
Arkady Grudzinsky 50+
Mats Kaarbö 10+
Gabor Maté is a physician who specializes in the study and treatment of addiction, you should read up on him and his work to get an idea of how addiction work.
Arkady Grudzinsky 50+
To this I agree. It is very unclear if such program would solve any problems or make anyone happier. Let's just say that I'm very, very skeptical that it might work.
Mats Kaarbö 10+
John Moonstroller 20+
IF your not working, you have a lot of time on your hands to do other stuff. Some people, perhaps many, might find this a way of life and have no problem living that way the rest of their life. There has to be some method of prodding these people to steer clear of a free lifestyle at tax payer expense.
The emphasis on these types of programs is always on the burden to the tax payer.
Mats Kaarbö 10+
The children will eventually realize that the only way a society can take care of them is if they care of the society thus participating in it.
Barry Palmer 50+
I submit that human rights are somewhat misnamed. The human rights in the USA Constitution do not give humans anything, rather they are restrictions on the government from acting in ways that would interfere with our individual freedoms.
I once read (I can't find the author) that we should all have the right to starve. If someone else is feeding you, you are his slave. The founders of the USA thought death was preferable to slavery, and so do I.
John Dunbar 10+
Barry Palmer 50+
"And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes and our sacred Honor."
I am sure.
pat gilbert 50+
John Dunbar 10+
" In England, at this day, if elections were open to all classes of people, the property of the landed proprietors would be insecure. An agrarian law would soon take place. If these observations be jsut, our government ought to secure the permanent interests of the country against innovation. Landholders ought to have a share in the government, to support these invaluable interests, and to balance and check the other. They ought to be so constituted as to protect the minority of the opulent against the majority."
Seems as though Madison believed in freedom for himself and his friends not so much for everyone....
Gail . 50+
Barry Palmer 50+
As for the freedom of others, that was an issue of great dispute among the founders. One of the reasons that slaves were held in such contempt is that they were perceived as valuing life more than freedom.
At that time, the notion of equality was very different from today. Complete equality of all men was literally inconceivable to most men, and this includes most of the founders. If you judge the founders by today's standards you find them all to be unethical hypocrites. If you put yourself in their situation, in their culture, you will see men of basic good will struggling to invent a completely new concept of how men relate to each other, a new foundation of government, and a new method of governing. Judging by the results, I think this bunch of selfish hypocrites did rather well.
And, amazingly, they did all this with very little help from women. Including women was inconceivable.
John Dunbar 10+
" One of the reasons that slaves were held in such contempt is that they were perceived as valuing life more than freedom." I have never heard of this, not saying it isn't true but that seems like an insanely arrogant and ridiculous notion. Especially if you look at the penalties that they were subject to and the levels of control put in place so as to ensure there was not a rebellion.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slave_codes
The founding fathers did some great things they also did some terrible things...they certainly did not care for the average man and as far as I'm concerned knew some of the things they were doing would be anything but beneficial for most. they all had a very legitimate understanding of history and knew about the struggle of slavery. I believe they knew that they were creating an illusion of control for the public and designed the constitution to function this way. Im also not sure if we can chalk up our nations prosperity to what the founding fathers did. We went from being oppressed to the oppressors rather quickly as our former countrymen slaughtered the natives and planted their flag. They founded some great things like freedom of speech and separation of church and state, checks and balances, civil liberties. It still remains that the constitution allows for those with economic power to subvert the interests of others.
Linda Taylor 50+
So when we see the term "human rights violation" it typically means things like imprisonment without cause, genocide, torture, withholding of resources vital to life such as food or water and typically it is a government or group of people causing the violation. These are rights of people.
However, there are times when people give up their human rights. There are also times when individual persons give up their human rights.
Basic income would have to be a civil distribution so individual persons can pursue their human rights. It could be done but the possibility of abuse is huge.
Mats Kaarbö 10+
What kind of abuse do you potentially see?
Linda Taylor 50+
Mats Kaarbö 10+
Linda Taylor 50+
Mats Kaarbö 10+
Fritzie Reisner 100+
There is a significant reduction in hours people chose to work, not theoretical but actual in these trial runs. http://www.econlib.org/library/Enc1/NegativeIncomeTax.html
Here is another article showing the measured reduction in hours of work for various demographic categories with this sort of guaranteed income: The reduction was slightly different in different experiments. The other interesting finding was that couples participating were more likely to divorce or separate than the control group.
http://www.bls.gov/opub/mlr/1981/04/art3full.pdf
Mats Kaarbö 10+
Fritzie Reisner 100+
I wanted only to bring the idea of collecting some evidence from unbiased sources into the debate.
One can speculate on the basis of ones own logic or experience about how people will behave, but one can also try to gather concrete evidence from actual behaviors.
These studies showed less of a work adjustment response than the designers of the program expected.
Mats Kaarbö 10+
That is great, but in order to fully understand this issue one needs to look at it in a holistic point of view. Therefore I invite you to check out Richard Wilkinson's talk, based on deep and unbiased studies, about how economic inequality affects people thus society: http://www.ted.com/talks/richard_wilkinson.html
Wilkinson also wrote a book on this issue that I highly recommend called: The Spirit Level: Why More Equal Societies Almost Always Do Better
Don Wesley 50+
If the counter balancing responsibilities are are proven to be always met; I argue yes.
If the citizen doesn't get what is necessary to be free to create, he will be inclined to steal and/or suffer.
I make this statement as a matter of principle.
lynn eschbach 30+
Mats Kaarbö 10+
chen xin
accroding to masiluo"theory .when we meet the first need ,can we achieve much better thing and have more care about creating and showing .
Robert Winner 50+
—United States Declaration of Independence, 1776
If we define this jesture as a RIGHT then it must be a right for all men. How can I say that everyone is entitled to icecream .... only if your name is Bob.
In the conversation last week of almost the same subject ... I rejected the idea and that it kills dignity and the work incentive. If you give me everything why should I work. It will inspire a generation of non-workers. This has occured in the US with welfare assistance. Generations of families have become dependent.
Arkady Grudzinsky below made a valid argument. Pat made a valid argument. You dismiss any argument that would preclude your idea from implementation. This would be socialism at its worst.
I disagree with this program and have stated my case before and briefly here. To be honest I find your argument emotional and not based on facts other than poor people exist. Yes ... There is always a top and a bottom ... a ying and a yang .... and this will continue even if this type of plan is implemented. It will not solve anything and has the more real possibality of being harmful to people and nation states.
I wish you well.
Mats Kaarbö 10+
A 'human right' usually denotes the right of all men or have I missed something?
"In the conversation last week of almost the same subject ... I rejected the idea and that it kills dignity and the work incentive. If you give me everything why should I work. It will inspire a generation of non-workers. This has occured in the US with welfare assistance. Generations of families have become dependent."
I argue the opposite. Did you read the description of this conversation? But, let me reiterate a little bit. Basic Income Guarantee is more than just being humane and giving a hand. This program would essentially eliminate poverty thus most human suffering. From a strictly pragmatic point of view, it is about decreasing crime and violence, which is the number one by-product of poverty, thus destruction. Second of all, it is about increasing quality of life for everyone, by granting anybody, who are willing and capable, access to participate in society and their environment. This is a far better and efficient way to do it, than restricting people's participation to their purchasing power.
"Arkady Grudzinsky below made a valid argument. Pat made a valid argument. You dismiss any argument that would preclude your idea from implementation."
I absolutely do not. On the contrary, I welcome any researched studies or reports that shows that a Basic Income Guarantee would cause more harm and I would more than happily reevaluate my position on it. But this would not mean that I wouldn't still believe that the necessities of life is a human right, just to make that clear. In terms of Arkady and Pat, they seem to have made up their mind about what they want and seem to lack the ability to phantom an idea beyond free-market capitalism, which is emotionally triggered and which doesn't really contribute to the conversation.
Robert Winner 50+
We are far apart and as you have expressed are dedicated to this idea.
I wish you luck. Bob.
Mats Kaarbö 10+
That doesn't mean that everybody become dependent or abuse it and speaking from personal experience isn't a valid counterargument.
peter lindsay 30+
Mats Kaarbö 10+
Reality check:
1. Almost half the world — over three billion people — live on less than $2.50 a day.
2. At least 80% of humanity lives on less than $10 a day
3. More than 80 percent of the world’s population lives in countries where income differentials are widening.
4. The poorest 40 percent of the world’s population accounts for 5 percent of global income. The richest 20 percent accounts for three-quarters of world income.
5. According to UNICEF, 22,000 children die each day due to poverty. And they “die quietly in some of the poorest villages on earth, far removed from the scrutiny and the conscience of the world. Being meek and weak in life makes these dying multitudes even more invisible in death.”
Source: http://www.globalissues.org/article/26/poverty-facts-and-stats
I don't know what numbers you fumble with when you say 'most people'.
peter lindsay 30+
peter lindsay 30+
Arkady Grudzinsky 50+
Mats Kaarbö 10+
Arkady Grudzinsky 50+
Nobody owes us a living (including God). When charity comes from heart, and not from government mandate, it is much more abundant. Forced redistribution of wealth is just legalized robbery. It fills the "givers" with bitterness and resentment and deprives "recipients" of gratitude. When we feel that society "owes" to us, we are never satisfied, no matter how much we receive.
We are not entitled to "happiness", but to "pursuit of happiness".
I believe, such program will have just the opposite effect on society than what you describe. As another utopic idea, I would advocate abandoning all mandatory entitlement programs altogether and handing them off to charities. Private individuals are far better and more efficient in taking care of each other than the government.
Mats Kaarbö 10+
By the way, do you have ANY statistics that shows 'private individuals are far better and more efficient in taking care of each other than the government'?
Arkady Grudzinsky 50+
We are. We need to realize it, stretch our hand and take it. Happiness cannot be "given" or "mandated". It's an internal state, mostly, independent of material conditions of our existence. It's like faith. You either have it or not. No amount of material evidence will suffice. It's a Zen concept. Read about the "National Grouch Day". http://muppet.wikia.com/wiki/National_Grouch_Day It's a joke, but each joke has a share of truth.
Re: "Why shouldn't everybody have the same access to goods and services for a good life?"
They do. They just have to stretch their hand. "Ask and it will be given to you, seek and you will find." If one sits there and feels like a victim, while others are pursuing their happiness, who is to blame? I don't say that disabled people have to go and earn the living. We must help each other. But it must come from the heart. Mandated charity does no good. People often do not realize their own potential and refuse to act simply because they do not believe in their own abilities and consider other people greedy, evil, etc. I do not like to blame "the 1%" for exploiting "the 99%". This division of people into "good" and "bad" buckets only causes strife. Of course, immoral and unfair practices must be punished, but most billionaires did not steal their wealth and give a lot to charity.
Who and how will determine what "basic income" means? Is having a vacation in Hawaii a basic necessity? Some think, it is...
As for the efficiency of the private sector in helping people in emergency vs. FEMA, here are a few links. I don't think, reliable statistics on private help can be found.
http://www.thefreemanonline.org/columns/perspective/perspective-hurricane-katrina-government-versus-the-private-sector/
http://www.akdart.com/katrina2.html
http://www.justice.gov/criminal/katrina/docs/09-04-07AG2ndyrprogrpt.pdf
http://www.justice.gov/criminal/katrina/docs/09-04-07AG2ndyrprogrpt.pdf
Mats Kaarbö 10+
Look. Basic Income Guarantee is more than just being humane and giving a hand. This program would essentially eliminate poverty thus most human suffering. From a strictly pragmatic point of view, it is about decreasing crime and violence, which is the number one by-product of poverty, thus destruction. Second of all, it is about increasing quality of life for everyone, by granting anybody, who are willing and capable, access to participate in society and their environment. This is a far better and efficient way to do it, than restricting people's participation to their purchasing power.
Arkady Grudzinsky 50+
http://encyclopedia2.thefreedictionary.com/Expropriation+of+the+Expropriators
Another entitlement program - search internet on the problems of the Social Security system in the U.S. and entitlement programs in Europe. Or the history of French Revolution.
These systems go bankrupt and corrupt within less than 100 years. I share your enthusiasm for ending the poverty and suffering, but let's check the reality. How is your proposal different from the Soviet system? Who will pay the bill to guarantee this "basic income"? Unless most of the people VOLUNTEER to do that, laws, taxes, and government mandates won't work.
Read this book to get a different perspective.
http://mises.org/books/thelaw.pdf
In reality, getting rid of all entitlement programs would be another extreme. Some balance must be maintained as in everything else.
Mats Kaarbö 10+
The reason why communism failed was because it wasn't implemented globally and constant pressures from the free-market capitalist countries made it difficult for these systems to take root and give people from the outside world any chance to see the system in effect - coupled with the obvious propaganda the free-market capitalist countries had taken into effect to ensure that people would stay ignorant to such systems.
"How is your proposal different from the Soviet system?"
Again, a Basic Income Guarantee becoming a human right would be implemented globally and not nationally.
"These systems go bankrupt and corrupt within less than 100 years."
That is assuming that we will have and want a monetary system forever. With technological advances the need for monetary exchange is being more and more irrelevant. This is because of the abundance technology creates. Read the book "The Best That Money Can't Buy" by Jacque Fresco to see how we can live without money.
"Who will pay the bill to guarantee this "basic income"? Unless most of the people VOLUNTEER to do that, laws, taxes, and government mandates won't work."
Hopefully, people will see the necessity and benefits by implementing such a program.
Arkady Grudzinsky 50+
People's mentality needs to change globally and naturally, without force. Love for the neighbor cannot be forced.
I can take a look at the book you quote. However, I do not think the world is ready to abandon money. Perhaps, it will some time, but it must happen naturally. Mandating such changes through legal system has never worked.
W. Ying 10+
“People's mentality needs to change globally and naturally, without force. Love for the neighbor cannot be forced.”
It is a process of changing our souls.
Soul contains instinct data and acquired data.
Changing these data in our brain is a very slow process of cell-growing, which needs long, long time polypettion.
Mats Kaarbö 10+
How was people alienated from the means of production and the fruits of their labor? Could you elaborate on this? I thought communism was all about the working people. And why do you think this creates a huge apathy, lack of motivation and lack of personal responsibility?
"Do you think, North Korea and Cuba are in economic dumpster because of the pressure of the free market?"
You do realize that Cuba has a total embargo from importing anything from Unites States, right? Now, if that isn't a direct pressure from a free market state, I don't know what is.
"People's mentality needs to change globally and naturally, without force. Love for the neighbor cannot be forced."
I wholeheartedly agree, and this is why people has to be educated about the benefits of a Basic Income Guarantee that would serve society as a whole and ultimately themselves.
Arkady Grudzinsky 50+
Mats, in the Soviet Union, private property of farmland or means of industrial production was illegal. All means of production belonged to the state. The idea was that such ownership would inevitably create exploitation. The food produced in collective farms and products produced in the factories also belonged to the state and were distributed administratively. The idea of central distribution and planned economy was to avoid ups and downs of capitalist economy. Private enterpreneurship was also illegal and officially frowned upon as desire to enrich oneself at the expense of others. Most people made living being employees of the state. No matter how hard one worked, the salary remained the same. Productivity was rewarded by celebrating high producers in the newspapers or company meetings. In a sense, the system was about working people. A factory worker sometimes had larger salary than a university professor, a doctor, or an engineer. Is it just? Administrative positions responsible for distribution were coveted and corruption was (and still is) rampant. I don't "think" that the system creates apathy and lack of responsibility. I saw it. I grew up in Soviet Ukraine.
Read about collective farms in Russia created forcefully by Stalin. Voluntary kibbutzim in Israel were more successful, but they seem to be in decline as well. Here are a few links to give you the idea. In Russia, collective farming was screwed up from the beginning. The article about kibbutzim has a good review of various problematic aspects.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_QaLReKDtko
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FcumJNNX0qc
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Collective_farming
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kibbutz
Mats Kaarbö 10+
Arkady Grudzinsky 50+
Re: "A Basic Income would merely be a policy or human right in this case,..." -- First, "basic income" is a fuzzy concept. Does it include an annual family vacation? (I already asked this question) Second, we may declare that every human has a right to live in a palace. Unless we provide funds to guarantee this right, such declaration would be irresponsible. Third, such declaration would foster irresponsibility, because everyone will demand a palace regardless of their contribution.
Re: "... that would be agreed upon through a global referendum or what have you, that says that all humans are entitled to an unconditional income for their necessities of life." -- Have you read this book? http://mises.org/books/thelaw.pdf. When you propose a measure that would benefit 95% of the people at the expense of the other 5%, I have little doubt that it will pass. The remaining 5% will then be exterminated physically or financially or will hide their assets, and the system will go bankrupt. You propose to create a huge public liability, worse than those that drag down European economy right now.
Mats Kaarbö 10+
Yes, but Soviet never really did that, did they? Sure, they nationalized most of the means of production, but how much of that can you really expect go back to the citizens if there is no system that regulates the surplus of exports? Of course there will be corruption in such environments with little to no regulation. In this sense, communism is equally as bad as free market. Furthermore, I am against forcing anybody into labor they don't wish to partake, I am pointing out the fact that a Basic Income would LIBERATE people from traditional notions of work. A Basic Income would _guarantee_ that people got their share of their cake. Be it by financing it through publicly owned energy production or taxation reforms.
Look this is more than just economics, its about principles. It should be a human right to have free access to necessities of life regardless of your situation. Something less is a thing of the past. We have the technology to liberate people to do things that really matter and to also enjoy leisure and spark innovation to new heights. It should be considered a privilege to partake in society in the quest to improve yourself and the rest of humanity, not self-interest on the expense of others.
Basic Income is neither fuzzy or hard to understand, its only the lack of information or the lack of willingness to learn new concepts that hinders you from realizing the benefits. Partly because of your seemingly indoctrination in age old economics of the past that serves no relevance to our surroundings and partly because of the emotional attachment you have to these same ideas. Therefore it is almost impossible for me to persuade you or make you realize the benefits in these small spaces on TED if you don't do any research yourself. So I urge to read more about it, before making anymore claims or assumptions about it.
Mats Kaarbö 10+
Did you really say at the _expense_ of the other 5% and justified it? Holy shit. If 95% of the population benefited from it it should be celebrated, not looked upon as a threat to the remaining 5%.
Arkady Grudzinsky 50+
Once people get a taste of comfortable living without work, they get addicted. You would think, they will use the opportunity for education and personal devevlopment. I doubt. Why bother? I know a person who has 4 children. His small salary allowed him to qualify for a government program that paid his rent. When he received a job offer with a double salary, he rejected it, because he would lose his benefits. I know children from well-to-do educated families who quit colleges for low-income jobs and drinking with buddies. I know quite a few young people who miss opportunities they have because they lack motivation or self-esteem. Read how people use their lottery winnings.
http://www.smartmoney.com/invest/stocks/why-lottery-winners-go-bankrupt-1301002181742/
Re: "It would also open the door for more automation of boring, repetitious and dangerous jobs and labor, both private and state, because work and labor is now being redefined as a result of a Basic Income."
There is a reverse side of the medal. Automation removes low-skilled labor from the market and raises the education requirements for entry-level jobs, thus creating fewer opportunities for young people.
Mats, the idea may sound great, but, in my opinion, it fails basic reality checks. I believe, feeling of entitlement CREATES poverty. People who see themselves as producers and contributors never lack basic income.
Mats Kaarbö 10+
Thus a Basic Income to compensate for all the 'lost jobs', that in reality will not be missed. Do you really think people strive for low-skilled labor? Of course not. So, people can now spend their time on either reeducation (if they choose to) or simply begin innovating and exploring more creative sides of themselves, which in and of it self creates positive societal values and an increase in cultural diversity. They could also enjoy leisure, a seemingly foreign concept to most free market capitalists...
Arkady Grudzinsky 50+
Mats, when people are "liberated" from work, there is no cake to share. One needs to work to get the cake. Cakes don't fall from the sky or grow from a tree. Even if they did, one would need to pick them up and put in their mouth.
Your idea is EXACTLY Marx's idea of communist society. "From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs." -- Marx
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/From_each_according_to_his_ability,_to_each_according_to_his_need
Here is a quote from Wikipedia: "Marx delineated the specific conditions under which such a creed would be applicable—a society where technology and social organization had substantially eliminated the need for physical labor in the production of things, where "labor has become not only a means of life but life's prime want".[9] Marx explained his belief that, in such a society, each person would be motivated to work for the good of society despite the absence of a social mechanism compelling them to work, because work would have become a pleasurable and creative activity. Marx intended the initial part of his slogan, "from each according to his ability" to suggest not merely that each person should work as hard as they can, but that each person should best develop their particular talents."
Mats Kaarbö 10+
Liberated from traditional NOTIONS of work, not work itself. People would still need and WANT to work, but with a Basic Income and more automation, people would at the same time redefine work as a concept and evolve it to something beyond the traditional occupations we have today, like low-skilled labor and even medium-skilled labor, which would be automated, so that people could focus on important and enjoyable stuff that enrich their lives. That has always been the premise for technology since the beginning. To make life easier and liberating.
Frankly, I don't want people to waste their talent and human ingenuity on useless jobs that could be done by a machine way more accurate and efficient than humans. That is highly unproductive in both a social and economical sense.
"Your idea is EXACTLY Marx's idea of communist society."
Keep my principals/philosophies separated from a Basic Income. They are not the same. Sure, many of my _principals_ may be similar to Marx's ideas, but that doesn't automatically mean that a Basic Income is affiliated with communism. If you still feel this way however, please pin point me where Marx talk about the concept of Basic Income, meaning an unconditional income.
Arkady Grudzinsky 50+
"In a higher phase of communist society, after the enslaving subordination of the individual to the division of labor, and therewith also the antithesis between mental and physical labor, has vanished; after labor has become not only a means of life but life's prime want; after the productive forces have also increased with the all-around development of the individual, and all the springs of co-operative wealth flow more abundantly -- only then then can the narrow horizon of bourgeois right be crossed in its entirety and society inscribe on its banners: From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs!"
http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1875/gotha/ch01.htm
Isn't this what you are talking about? Perhaps, Marx did not use the exact term "basic income", but this seems to be exactly what is meant by the phrase "to each according to his needs", isn't it?
Perhaps, Marx's ideas are prophetic. It is very possible that society will reach this happy time. I'm just not sure which will come first - communism in Marx's understanding or the kingdom of heaven. They seem like the same thing to me.
Arkady Grudzinsky 50+
Mats, when 5% of the population is robbed and exterminated for the "benefit" of the 95%, there is nothing to celebrate. Perhaps, you have heard about Gulag and Auschwitz.
John Smith 30+
They're not getting exterminated, in fact they'll get a guaranteed basic income as well! .They're also not being robbed, they're just asked to return stolen goods to the rightful owners, the people who actually produced all the goods instead of moving their trustfund money around, calling that an investment and claiming that was the single most important step in the production process (if resources weren't concentrated in the hands of a few to begin with there would be no need for rich investors either, it's just a scam where a few people rig the system to ensure demand for what they're selling).
It also has nothing to do with communism, communism sought 100% employment, not a basic income, it also did not allow for private entrepeneurship, while private entrepeneurship can exist in a basic income society. There is also no reason to assume a basic income society cannot be a democracy. Such strong comparisons to the Soviet Union show a lack of imagination, as if it is a law of nature that any system that is not capitalist must be communist.
Arkady Grudzinsky 50+
I guess, "robbed" and "stolen" comes down to the definition of ownership. Let's say, you come up with an idea of a product, invest your resources into product development, take risks to borrow money to finance your business idea, hire workers to implement YOUR idea and YOUR plan, sell the product and make profit (or, which is equally or, even, more probable, fail and go bankrupt). Do you say that the hired workers who get their salary regardless of the success of the whole enterprise, are the rightful owners of the product? If they want to be, they should assume the same risks as the enterpreneur and, perhaps, forsake their guaranteed basic income to share the potential pay-offs of the success, and, inevitably, the losses associated with the failure.
Should people who take unjustified risks be guaranteed a "basic income"? That painfully reminds the recent bail-outs of the failed banks in the U.S.
Anyway, I don't say, it has to be like the Soviet Union, I don't say that it's impossible or that society will never reach such stage. I just say that it doesn't seem plausible in the current social, economical, and moral conditions. I may be missing something, but this idea doesn't seem to fit what I know about humans and economy.
Random Chance 30+
"We are not entitled to "happiness", but to "pursuit of happiness".
Of course you are entitled to happiness. What a foolish thought to believe or think you or anyone else is not.
So limiting thinking that way.
Cheers
Arkady Grudzinsky 50+
W. Ying 10+
Happiness comes from "the short-time feeling of things a-step-better for keeping our DNA alive" whether it "entitled" or "pursued".
e.g. sun rise, raining during drought, cool breeze in hot summer, ..
John Dunbar 10+
This implies that the consumers are informed. If this were true wouldn't commercials and the marketing industry be more interested in actually informing potential consumers, rather than hiring psychologists to use shrewd and deceitful marketing practices. If gillette wants to inform me about why their product is better than the other guys is, wouldn't it be better to tell me why vs showing me that Tom Brady uses their product. My point is that marketing seeks to keep potential consumers uninformed and wishes to play to unconscious associations, like if you buy Bud Light you too will have models falling all over you. Companies invest massive sums of money into PR campaigns as well as marketing to keep the public uniformed as to why an individual should buy their product. The market is hardly a teller of of public interest it to is manufactured and manipulated.
pat gilbert 50+
Yes I know marketing companies are all insidious preying on the hapless customer...
Marketing speaks to the person's emotions but the point is that the need was there in the first place.
I will admit that the average person is not aware and as you have stated that life is demanding so who could really blame them for being preoccupied? And you bet they use these points.
So what is the alternative to the market determining what is needed? they tried that in the Soviet Union here is a quote from Yeltsin
" Boris Yeltsin reacted somewhat differently to a Houston supermarket in 1989. He expressed astonishment at the abundance and variety of the products he saw, but in his autobiography Against the Grain he describes the experience as "shattering": "When I saw those shelves crammed with hundreds, thousands of cans, cartons, and goods of every possible sort, for the first time I felt quite frankly sick with despair for the Soviet people. That such a potentially super-rich country as ours has been brought to a state of such poverty! It is terrible to think of it."
http://bcm.bc.edu/issues/winter_2004/ll_ussr.html
Which method would you prefer? Which one is more accurate at determining what is wanted?
John Dunbar 10+
Im not so sure how i feel about the article you cite, i'm sure this happened and played a role in the destruction of the Soviet Union, but I am also sure that it did not help that it faced outside forces that wished to destroy the idea of challenging the power of capitalist states, most notably the United States. I am also sure that the viscousness that ensued under Stalin didn't help. From my perspective the United States used soviet totalitarianism to deem Communism as such and i am also sure the soviet Union called it communism out of an appeal to the morality of providing a floor for poverty. After all the US has supported vicious dictators as well as countries that wish to allow wage slavery. So its relatively difficult to even know what it is the American capitalism/government stands for or against.
The alternative I would suggest is to actually inform consumers tell them why their product is better than the others and tell them why it would be helpful to them and the world. Then the consumer could actually be informed vs deluded.
pat gilbert 50+
The thing about the market place is that when one company "manipulates the customers" another competitor comes along and takes market share. This happened in the 60s when auto companies would build in obsolescence by making the parts wear out at x number miles this lasted until the 80's when the Japanese came along with higher and higher quality products taking market share to the point of coming out with the Lexus at a higher quality for less money than the German cars.
Your second paragraph has too much crap going through it to get a bead on your point.
Your 3r paragraph ignores how competitive the market place is as I indicated with the Yeltsin story. Companies have to compete for attention from the customer. The best way to do this is through a technique called positioning where by a lot of information is communicated quickly. Educating people is a long slow laborious task. Once again though you underestimate people's intelligence in my experience most people are pretty damn smart when comes to buying things. I wish they were that smart about politics/economics.
Fritzie Reisner 100+
Starting with Norway, cost out the "transfer" part of your program. That is, figure out what the income guarantee is that you think would meet needs, dealing with the potentially different needs of people of different ages.
Then you could search for empirical evidence of people's demonstrated work response to an income guarantee. I have to believe there is work on this subject in the economic literature. The Journal of Economic Literature might be a good place to start for research published in English.
Nothing you find will fit the situation like a glove, but a collection of evidence and measurements developed by researchers without a particular policy agenda will be more informative, and probably more convincing than your speculation or anyone elses.
Then you can turn to the costs of the administration of your program of monetary disbursements, including any sort of verifications of eligibility and identity, continuing up-to-date assessment of "need," and so forth.
The costs of the transfers plus the administrative costs are what you would need to finance.
Finally, there is a large literature called Public Finance, which you might want to get into to understand the implications of different financing vehicles.
I think anyone who wants others to take a proposal seriously would need to do this kind of homework.
Obviously one doesn't need to do any of this to get people to chat with you about your idea, but I think you would if you ever wanted to get serious.
Mats Kaarbö 10+
Fritzie Reisner 100+
When you introduce an idea just at a very general level without anything concrete for someone to grab onto, in my experience the discussion just becomes a repetition of people's prior ideological positions. No ones mind changes and no ones position budges about the matter.
Of course if you are happy with the effectiveness of your approach in the sense that you believe you are attracting people adequately to your idea, then by all means keep on doing just what you are doing.
Mats Kaarbö 10+
Furthermore, I did include a related TED talk in the description, which I highly recommend and which is highly relevant to what I claim in my description of this conversation. Richarch Wilkinson is a British researcher in social inequalities in health and the social determinants of health. So, while I completely agree that 'putting some facts in tends to make an argument more persuasive', I was hoping that Richards' brilliant talk in addition to the 'googlebility' of a Basic Income Guarantee would be sufficient. Perhaps a naivety from my part.
All that aside, I do appreciate you taking the time to point out the things you find lacking and sharing your thoughts, constructively, on how I should consider approaching things. This helps me a lot in terms of communicating and conveying my own thoughts. I thank you for that.
John Dunbar 10+
John Frum 30+
My point: though the entire business world may seem to be greedy and exploitative to an outsider, from the inside, things are quite multicolored.
John Dunbar 10+
From where I'm standing John, so long as corporations remain to be run like a tyranny with the head honchos making millions as they run the company into the ground (http://truth-out.org/news/item/12153-citigroup-ceo-walks-off-with-260-million) nothing will change. Corporations need to be run democratically if they are to ever truly serve the needs of the people as well as construct a future of prosperity.
John Frum 30+
Krisztián Pintér 200+
Lindsay Newland Bowker 50+
The original democracy in greece, Democracy as re invented by the United States, democracy as replicated throughout the world ( except fr these new modern constitutions) did not affirm and institute these values. We created and replicate a version of democracy and freedom that is virtually syonymous with capitalism and with the idea that each individual is born with equal opportunity ( ot at all true) and is responsible for his/her on destiny.
What we have created as "free societies", democratic nations do not emrbace the idea that every single person should have a guranteed minimum income and even the assistance that is given in unemployment befits, health benefits, welfare payments and housing assistance are resented by more than half of all Americans judging by the.far right control of our legislature who want to end all these things.
Perhaps oe way to begin to thik about everyonne having some sort of basic stake is to reconsider who owns a nation's natural resources and how much of a nations income from natural resources rights and extractions should be distributed equally to all the people ( as for example in Alaska's Permanent Fund) instead of going into general treasury. Shouldn't the subsidies the government creates to facilitate extraction of resources be recouped in a "peoples share " of earnings and be distributed to the people each getting an equal share?
pat gilbert 50+
What effect do think the tyranny of democracy has on countries?
Lindsay Newland Bowker 50+
I don't think the idea of "private property" is inconsistent with the idea of "the commons"..a common ownership of natural resources including public lands .and a per capita distribution of public income derived from it.
Property rights are a cornerstone of America's tea party movement and obviously a fundamental aspect of most modern democracies. On my island where billionaires have descended onto a tiny fishing village of working poor where island folk work 2 or 3 jobs just be among the working poor owning property the effects of property ownership on standard of living results largely in a drain on the working poor who have owned their land for generations. Most can't afford to keep the land they inherit.
So in a system that tolerates and perpetuates income inequality and has no foundation value that all people should be free of want, property rights also are not equal., the benefits of of property ownership are not equal..
Not sure what you mean about the "tyranny of democracy" but suspect you are pointing to the same thing I am..
What we need to build into our foundation is a desire to be a "conviviocracy"
Being a democracy, at least in the way the U.S. and other nations who have copied us are, is not enough in terms of our stewardship for humanity..
pat gilbert 50+
As far as the idea of the commons goes why would the oil company take the risk if there is no profit? as it is the government makes more money off of oil than the oil companies do especially in Europe.
Lindsay Newland Bowker 50+
I don't agree that folk should have to sell their land to acomodate gentrifiers..that's a whole other discussion and off topic for this one..
To your point on oil profits..the problem with the subsidy system for il, natural gas, etc. is that we ahre the risks through subsidy but at the other end we don't recoup that public investment and we could and should. There's no reason why allpublic income ( ege licensing fees) to do with mining and natural resources on public land should not be shared with the public equally.
Even resource extraction on private land involves a shared public risk..eg cyanide heap leach processing to extract gold.
Resources in the commons..waterways lakes, waters where fish breed and grow, wetlands that are breeding grounds for the worlds oceans, the air we all breathe are all put at risk in these endeavors. These are commons . Beyond the fees for oversight and application approval and ongoing public monitoring , could we consider whether activities that put the commons at risk to derive profit shouldn't involve some ongoing fees that benefit each and every owner of these commons ( in addition to the total public cost of protecting these commons) .
The system we have now shells out subsidy from we the people" to encourage certain endeavors deemed to have an inherent general public benefit..but we don;t earn that investment back at the other end when these endeavors start paying huge profits. The Sovereign Wealth funds are a model on how to capture some of that and the Alaska one a model of how redistribute that back..
pat gilbert 50+
The people who own property in the affected areas will realize a greater profit on their real estate if they have to move they can rent to someone as well. No meddling necessary.
I understand that some regulation is needed, whether that has to be by the government is debatable.
Cyanide leaching sound bad but it is safe. Who ever created that advancement should profit from it, if not for the innovation the mining would no occur and the world would be paying that much more for gold.
As far as the inherent public interest subsidies go just get rid of them. The market is the only true indicator of public interest.
Everyone pays that much more for oil because of what dividends are paid out to the residents of Alaska. Or more greatly because of the regulations on refineries.
There is too much conjecture on this subject.
Mats Kaarbö 10+
Correct me if I am wrong, but you seem touch upon something really interesting here, where equal distribution of wealth goes beyond the usual taxation to sustain a social program, and where the carrying capacity of the nations natural resources is measured to understand how much resources there is available on a local and national level and that this alone should be the determining factor of how much resources people can access, based on their need, in correlation with the finite resources within that nation. Am I way off?
Lindsay Newland Bowker 50+
Of course ay nation ( or fr that matter in the U.S., any state) can decide who owns public lands and how any income from public lands should be managed. One way, in addition to and side by side with any other systems of taxation and benefit t that are in place is to set up a "sovereign wealth fund" like Alaskas, where a specific portion of income is redistributed back per capita and also offsets taxes. Alaska is basically tax free ( no income taxes) and in addition every person gets a disiiribution every year from natural resources .
Alaska is one of the few Sovereign wealth funds to have this feature of distribution back to the people.
I like that it is per capita ..that every one gets the same amount. It's simple. It;s fair. Its consistent wiht the idea of civic equality that is fundamental to all democracy
(see my earlier TED conversation on this for more information and discussion) .
The equal sharing of income from a country's or a State's "commons" most likely would not be enough to meet basic needs for food, housing, medical care etc. .Even fr a very wealthy state like Alaska, the per capita distribution is only about $3,000..
It is a way though to take a step towards everyone having a basic economic stake.
In general, don't you agree, any society should build in stewardship for one another, stewardship for future generations. The idea of each of us giving back , being stewards is certainly core to the most successful societies. So in our modern capitalistic corporatocracies we could think about "monetizing" these contributions.
Already we have a credit card program called snap for food benefits. A holder of the card has a "credit limit" that is the benefit they are entitled to. They present it like any debit card for eligible food purchases .
Something like the snap card could monetize stewardship? .
I certainly don't think a free lunch society would be very worthwhile.
Josh S
1st: most people would stop working and sit at home and do nothing. Why? because they get money no matter what and dont need to work. This is why this would never work. No one would work and t he country would grind to a halt.
2md: Who's going to pay for it? the government can't because there would be noone working, so no tax revenues. They going to print money? say goodbye to the value of whatever currency your using. Borrow money? how long is it going to be before the lender realizes theyre never getting their money back...
It's a nice thought in theory- it really is. Id love to sit at home, watch tv, hang out with friends, fun stuff. It would be amazing to get money to do it! The problem is that this doesnt work. Sorry, we live in the real world, not a fantasy. Money does NOT grow on trees.
Mats Kaarbö 10+
A recent study published last month in Nature Journal suggests that humans are naturally good. This study adds to the mounting evidence against the popular misconception that corruption is a trait of human nature. In ten experiments using economic games, scientists observed that faster decisions result in more cooperation and generosity, while slower, calculated decisions show a decrease in cooperation and generosity. The conclusion is that the automatic reaction is to be friendly, generous and cooperative, and only upon further consideration do humans become greedy or violent. The study: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22996558
Fritzie Reisner 100+
I do agree with you, Mats, that most people are likely not inclined to sit around doing nothing and that no more than a tiny proportion of people are corrupt.
I do think that MANY people would choose to spend the majority of their time, though, on things for their own pleasure. These would not be harmful things, but they may not contribute much of meaning to society (beyond themselves).
And the question of financing such a widespread income transfer remains, particularly as the cost must be supported by a smaller number of people working at jobs.
W. Ying 10+
I think:
The suggestion of Nature Journal may be explained easily by common sense as:
(1)Faster decision: ----
From unconscious fast comparison of instinct data without long-time conscious computation .
Instinct data are our ancestors' successful experiences in about 10,000 years ago.
Our instinct of symbiosis in ancient time needed "cooperation and generosity" for survival.
(2) Slower decision: ----
From conscious slow computation of present data in terms of today's MONEY.
Today's people believe MONEY can buy everything including "survival", and thus do not need "cooperation and generosity" of symbiosis for survival
Then, people become greedy and violent.
Is it?
Josh S
The billionaires and millionaires that work 18 hours a day are only millionaires and billionaires BECAUSE they work 18 hours a day. That was there incentive, money. But do you honestly think they would work 18 hours a day if they dont even need to work because they are given it?
Like fritzie said, while your study may be true, people think about what they will do in their lives. They dont act spontaneously in these situations. So you prove my point, they would be more greedy because the decision is thought out.
Mats Kaarbö 10+
Sure, money as incentive is a valid point, but let's be frank, billionaires could quit their day-job today and never work again. Is this the case however? No, it's not. And what about people who inherit a fortune? Most of them still want to work or do something they enjoy that enrich their lives. It's all a matter of upbringing.
"Like fritzie said, while your study may be true, people think about what they will do in their lives. They dont act spontaneously in these situations. So you prove my point, they would be more greedy because the decision is thought out."
Here's the thing though, if they really thought it through they would immediately realize that the only way to sustain a Basic Income Guarantee is to participate in society.
John Dunbar 10+
Do you really think anyone seriously believes that they could just sit at home watch tv and live a lavish life? I know I don't thats ridiculous and I don't think anybody is suggesting that could ever be the case. Granted I believe a society like this would need to be extremely mature, but how long can capitalism sustain life? A system based off of exploiting others for profit can only last so long without just extreme destruction.
Josh S
You ask if we need an incentive to create and enhance the world. I would say yes, we do. Why do you work? I'll put my lifesavings that you dont do it for free. You get paid, so you can sustain yourself. We do have to work, but because we need the benefits of working like money. But if you take away that need, then we dont need to work.
Sure people, as well as i, may work on projects from time to time. But do you honestly think people would devote more time to working when there is less incentive? If you do you have much more faith in humanity then i.
And do i think capitalism was instilled in tribal socities? No- they didnt have that. BUT, you had to work your entire day so you could even live. You would NOT be given your food and sustenance for free and be allowed to do whatever you wanted.
John Dunbar 10+
"We do have to work, but because we need the benefits of working like money. But if you take away that need, then we dont need to work."
Why do I work? Fair point, of course I do not do it for free, but money is only a small piece of the pie in my personal equation for happiness. Again Ill make the point that people are naturally inclined to create and work. What kind of life would it be to just sit around, get fat, and drown yourself in empty pleasures? What kind of self image must you have to be like this? This is how people behave as a result of abuse, either systemic, or interpersonal. Your point shows the fallacy of capitalism and that is that people are essentially automata who wish to mindlessly consume. Capitalism creates an environment that rewards those who pathologically consume with status, glory, and prestige. What kind of a demeaning existence would it be to just work, buy new things and die, humans are far more complex. There is a bit of existential death that occurs to many who find themselves in this position.
"But do you honestly think people would devote more time to working when there is less incentive?"
The incentive comes as a result of a demeaning proposition to work so that one can consume endlessly. The incentive should be altruistic in nature and creating happiness in oneself and others by raising the standard of living both internally and externally.
"And do i think capitalism was instilled in tribal socities? No- they didnt have that. BUT, you had to work your entire day so you could even live. You would NOT be given your food and sustenance for free and be allowed to do whatever you wanted."
This is just false, primitive tribes worked roughly 20-30 hours a week the rest of time was spent socializing and playing games.