Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 13/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   The 50-50-50-50-50 tax and economic plan.
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1405 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 39 of 75 (660304)
04-24-2012 8:34 AM
Reply to: Message 33 by crashfrog
04-23-2012 3:52 PM


what's retirement?
Come on crashfrog, you're being silly here
RAZD says that it means that after age 50, nobody can hire you to do something.
What I said was:
Message 10: It means you stop working for somebody else. It means executives step down and let the next generation take the reins.
It means that you work for yourself to do the things you want to do.
But RAZD's system means that since every job retires you out at 50, you're stuck in permanent joblessness because you can't legally be hired.
Which is a bs overstatement. I expanded on it later
Message 24: When the point is that it is possible to do other things you have wanted to do but put off because you were working
Paint, write books, travel, take care of grandkids, volunteer to the peace corps, mentor at schools, walk from one side of the country to the other, or any number of thousands of other things. There are more rewarding things to do than just working for pay week after week. Do it before you are too beat up by age and disease to be able to do it.
You could also start your own company. Grow flowers, help rebuild houses in New Orleans or rundown areas, join Volunteers of America, tutor children, assist immigrants in learning English as a Second Language. You can run for public office.
You can go back to school and learn more about the world and how it works. Build a boat and sail around the world. Climb Mt Everest. You can do a "walk about" ...
You can think about the value of things on another basis than just cost and consumerism based values.
You on the other hand seem to think that it is some kind of spiritually wonderful thing to be a prisoner of working for someone else.
The point is that you don't need to be working for pay week after week for someone else. You don't need to have a steady job.
It's curious that many people talk about doing things after retirement - including odd jobs they want to do - and they will tell you that they are retired, but you seem to think that this doesn't count. This is with the common understanding of the definition of retirement:
quote:
Retirement Definition & Meaning | Dictionary.com
retirement n
1.   a. the act of retiring from one's work, office, etc
      b. (as modifier) - retirement age
2. the period of being retired from work: she had many plans for her retirement
How do you define retired? Sitting in a one room windowless box day after day waiting to die?
Enjoy.

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
Rebel American Zen Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 33 by crashfrog, posted 04-23-2012 3:52 PM crashfrog has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 40 by crashfrog, posted 04-24-2012 9:07 AM RAZD has seen this message but not replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1405 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 43 of 75 (669358)
07-29-2012 12:34 PM
Reply to: Message 42 by xongsmith
04-24-2012 8:26 PM


resurection ?
Hi xongsmith,
No. After 50, you become a Consultant!
Curious that it seems the retirement component is the most controversial. You could make it after 50 years of work and it would be similar to what we currently have here in the US.
But it also seems that people are adversely disposed to retirement, and almost need to be forced into it, while retired people I know (including myself) are having more fun retired than they ever did working for a living.
Perhaps there should be a national referendum on taxes so that the people can decide how they want to be taxed ... not congress and not big business.
We could also do a national referendum on the budget so people could decide what they want to cut rather than just mouth slogans ...
And we could do a national referendum on amendments that are still pending and add new ones (like corporations are NOT people ... )
Enjoy

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
Rebel American Zen Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 42 by xongsmith, posted 04-24-2012 8:26 PM xongsmith has not replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1405 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 44 of 75 (745841)
12-28-2014 12:11 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by RAZD
03-01-2012 1:47 PM


News from the Pope and others ... Unconditional Basic Income
The Next Big Social Idea: Unconditional Basic Income
quote:
In 2014, serious voices from Pope Francis to Thomas Piketty, in his book Capital in the Twenty-First Century, have lamented ever-widening inequality. Others have expressed concern that "the second machine age" of digital technologies will entail the massive elimination of jobs.
Few, however, have proposed policy solutions equal to the scale of the problem. But there is one proposal -- perhaps the next big social idea -- that has emerged: Unconditional Basic Income.
The UBI is a monthly monetary income granted every month, unconditionally, by a political community to each of its members from birth. Depending on the nation, in Europe and the U.S. it would probably be $2,500 per adult and $1,500 per child. It must secure a minimum livelihood and enable a participation in society. It is unconditional because it constitutes a human, civil and legal right and shall be provided without proof of need and without obligation to work, search for work, or performing any services in return. Yes, you're being paid to live, work and participate as you please.
Some social movements have begun to promote the UBI, notably in Switzerland, where over 100,000 people have signed a petition that will put the idea forward in a national referendum in 2015 or 2016.
Ultimately, the UBI will enable us to rewrite and renegotiate our social contract with each other because with the unconditional basic income you are given access and opportunity to participate in the economy and society as you see fit. When everybody receives the same basic amount of money to secure a livelihood, the social and economic playing field will be leveled, making equal opportunity and access real, while unleashing incomprehensible amounts of human energy and potential.
You are paid to participate in the economy, with no minimum wage requirements, so you are free to negotiate far compensation for work done for others -- you no longer have to take a job just to live no matter how crummy, demeaning and disrespectful it is.
Enjoy

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAmerican☆Zen☯Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by RAZD, posted 03-01-2012 1:47 PM RAZD has seen this message but not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 45 by jar, posted 12-28-2014 12:42 PM RAZD has seen this message but not replied
 Message 46 by ringo, posted 12-28-2014 1:30 PM RAZD has seen this message but not replied
 Message 47 by Jon, posted 12-28-2014 7:18 PM RAZD has seen this message but not replied
 Message 48 by AZPaul3, posted 12-29-2014 9:53 PM RAZD has replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1405 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 51 of 75 (745964)
12-30-2014 11:39 AM
Reply to: Message 50 by ringo
12-30-2014 10:57 AM


Re: The reaganomics recession -- the cold cash war
... It could be argued that the Soviet economy imploded because the Western nations spent untold billions for almost half a century trying to make it implode.
And Reagan nearly drove the US into bankruptcy in the process. Or don't we remember the reaganomics recession?
Enjoy

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAmerican☆Zen☯Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 50 by ringo, posted 12-30-2014 10:57 AM ringo has seen this message but not replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1405 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 52 of 75 (746037)
12-31-2014 4:53 PM
Reply to: Message 48 by AZPaul3
12-29-2014 9:53 PM


Re: The Inflating Universe
If I have my sums right, using 2013 US Census population data for adults/children, the cost to the USA would be about $9.3 trillion. ...
Can you live on $50/day? Want to try? Leave your house, find an apartment and see how far you get on $50/day. Take your spouse along and make it $100/day. When I lived by myself in an apartment it cost me $600 to $700 a month on top of a $600/month rent.
... The average US family of 4 would be given $96,000 per year just 'cuz ...
quote:
Message 1: 1. give every registered tax payer $50 per day (= $18,250.00 per year) and eliminate welfare, unemployment, social security and government pensions (including those of congress, etc). You can opt to collect this weekly, monthly or annually (at tax time).
A family of four with two registered voters would get $36,500.00.
Where I live (RI) poverty wages for a family of four (2 adults 2 children) is $10.60/hour ($84.80/day(8 hour), $424.00/week (40 hour), $22,048.00/year), living wage is $19.17/hr ($153.36/day(8 hour), $766.80/week (40 hour), $39873.60/year).
Living Wage Calculator - Living Wage Calculation for Rhode Island
So $50/day (1 worker) is $6.25/hr for an 8 hour day, $350.00/week (7 day), $18,250.00 per year ... ie less than poverty wage, but probably close to what welfare and stamps pay. Hardly yacht financing wages ... with two registered adults the total comes to $36,500/yr, which is still less than a living wage, but close to it.
... How would we pay for this?
The same way we pay for current programs but with less overhead as the whole program can be rolled into the tax code and administered by one federal department, the IRS.
Whose going to flip burgers at McDuck's? OK, so you're going to raise the pay scale as an incentive. The kid is already pulling in $1500 a month, just how high would the pay scale have to be to get him to put on his apron? What would have to be the cost of an order of fries to pay for that raised pay scale?
If the kid is old enough to vote he gets $350/week, $1,500/month (30 days).
Note that most fast food workers are single parents and many of the "kids" have college degrees. Kids under voting ages would still have to work for basic wage.
Yes the company would need to make the pay attractive to have adult workers, or hire more kids. The adults can afford to bargain for better pay because they don't have starving children at home. The pay for one working adult (leaving the other home to care for the kids) would be sufficient to get over the living wage line, and start being able to move up the economic ladder. Even $2/hr ($16/day, $80/week, $4,160/yr) would take the family out of sub-living wage zone to $40,660/year, and on the road to growth and prosperity.
For a single adult the poverty wage is $5.21/hr ($41.68/day(8 hour), $208.40/week (40 hour), $10,836.80/year),
and the living wage is $9.93/hr ($79.44/day(8 hour), $397.20/week (40 hour), $20,654.40/year), so he would not be at poverty wage level, but would have to earn $2,404.40/year to get to a living wage (or about $1.16/hr for 52x40 hour weeks). It would be a pretty sad company that could not afford $1.20/hr or $2.00/hr as their base pay.
It would not be a cushion, it would be one (solid) step up the ladder. One that isn't lost the minute you start earning a wage.
Do ... you ... want ... fries ... with ... that?
One of the reasons stated for a UBI is the next round of the machine age throwing more folks out of work. In reality it makes the robot that much more imperative. A self-fulling prophesy?
Somehow factory food is not that appealing, especially with Monsanto frankenfood ...
Enjoy

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAmerican☆Zen☯Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 48 by AZPaul3, posted 12-29-2014 9:53 PM AZPaul3 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 53 by AZPaul3, posted 12-31-2014 6:08 PM RAZD has replied
 Message 55 by ringo, posted 01-02-2015 11:41 AM RAZD has replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1405 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 54 of 75 (746069)
01-01-2015 2:45 PM
Reply to: Message 53 by AZPaul3
12-31-2014 6:08 PM


guaranteed base income and the topic
What $50/day? I'm not talking about your $50/day scheme. I'm addressing the Unconditional Basic Income proposal at your Message 44.
You changed lanes without signaling.
Ah, excuse me for thinking we were talking about the topic of the thread, where the program noted in Message 44 was cited as an example of growing movements in other countries (and promoted by the Pope), to support the idea of having a guaranteed base income ...
Enjoy.

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAmerican☆Zen☯Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 53 by AZPaul3, posted 12-31-2014 6:08 PM AZPaul3 has seen this message but not replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1405 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 56 of 75 (746115)
01-02-2015 3:39 PM
Reply to: Message 55 by ringo
01-02-2015 11:41 AM


Re: The Inflating Universe
According to my calculations, that would come to a little over $18,000 per year. I made that much a few years in my life, not very many.
$18,250/yr, yes, it is doable, and 10 to 20 years ago much more so. That is above poverty wage but below living wage, ...
Message 52:For a single adult the poverty wage is $5.21/hr ($41.68/day(8 hour), $208.40/week (40 hour), $10,836.80/year),
and the living wage is $9.93/hr ($79.44/day(8 hour), $397.20/week (40 hour), $20,654.40/year), so he would not be at poverty wage level, but would have to earn $2,404.40/year to get to a living wage (or about $1.16/hr for 52x40 hour weeks). It would be a pretty sad company that could not afford $1.20/hr or $2.00/hr as their base pay.
... which means some compromise must be made on food or healthcare or shelter. Sharing shelter is the easiest.
Enjoy.
Edited by RAZD, : added data
Edited by RAZD, : modata

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAmerican☆Zen☯Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 55 by ringo, posted 01-02-2015 11:41 AM ringo has seen this message but not replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1405 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 58 of 75 (746633)
01-08-2015 5:48 PM
Reply to: Message 57 by New Cat's Eye
01-02-2015 4:10 PM


50-50 for you and 50-50 for me (Chico Marx)
Would I be able to opt-out?
Do you want to opt out of society?
Consider the proposition that half of what you make is due to your individual effort and half of it is due to the socio-economic society you live in.
Contributing half your earnings (via taxes) to build a happy, well educated and healthy society means that you get to live in a society with happy, well educated and healthy people.
Part of the pursuit of happiness is that you need a happy environment to live in yes?
Enjoy

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAmerican☆Zen☯Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 57 by New Cat's Eye, posted 01-02-2015 4:10 PM New Cat's Eye has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 59 by Jon, posted 01-08-2015 8:47 PM RAZD has seen this message but not replied
 Message 61 by New Cat's Eye, posted 01-09-2015 9:29 AM RAZD has replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1405 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 62 of 75 (746678)
01-09-2015 10:02 AM
Reply to: Message 61 by New Cat's Eye
01-09-2015 9:29 AM


Re: 50-50 for you and 50-50 for me (Chico Marx)
I meant could I opt out of this program?
Like, can I decline the free money and then not have to pay the taxes?
Can you feasibly opt out of all the benefits provided by taxes? Or are you going to cherry pick ...
I don't accept that.
If I put in zero effort, I'd make less than half of what I make now.
So you are quibbling about the proportion not the basic concept. Like the joke about billionaire ask woman "will you sleep with me for $1million?" the woman says yes and he says "will you sleep with me for $1?" and she says "no, what do you take me for, a prostitute?" and he says "we've already established that, we're just haggling over the price" ...
Curiously I don't think you fully take into consideration how much your salary is dependent on the society and economic structure that surrounds you, from the roads you travel every day to the businesses you interact with.
Can you earn that salary all on your own in total seclusion with no communication other than voice and no transportation other than walking? Really?
That's just you assuming your conclusion that this program would work well.
Actually it is me looking at other countries that provide more social assistance to all people and the happiness and education level of the people there compared to the US.
Enjoy.

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAmerican☆Zen☯Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 61 by New Cat's Eye, posted 01-09-2015 9:29 AM New Cat's Eye has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 63 by New Cat's Eye, posted 01-09-2015 10:21 AM RAZD has replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1405 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 64 of 75 (746702)
01-09-2015 11:06 AM
Reply to: Message 63 by New Cat's Eye
01-09-2015 10:21 AM


Re: 50-50 for you and 50-50 for me (Chico Marx)
Of course not. But its a yes or no question, RAZD. Apparently one that you cannot answer.
How about this: Can I opt out of the free money for a reduction in my income tax?
Keep the $50 a day and just charge me, say, 10% on taxes or something?
Or is that just totally disallowed?
What you already get is your taxes reduced by $50.
Yeah, its not 50/50. I'm thinking more like 5/95.
Which is just your opinion.
But I've helped pay for that stuff.
And all that stuff would still be there even if I put in zero effort and hadn't helped pay for it.
They don't magically grant me a salary by existing.
So I'm still required to put in most of the effort to get where I am.
And that stuff needs maintenance , it doesn't just magically appear on its own, new structures and innovations that you benefit from don't just magically appear -- it is the work of other people, by society, that makes those things that directly benefit you, not just at work but at home and where-ever you go.
Doesn't matter. Without my effort, I wouldn't be anywhere near where I am now.
The existence of the infrastructure allows me to put in the effort, it doesn't grant me the benefits of my effort.
The work you do doesn't need you to get where it is, the society just needs a person, and you just happen to be a candidate ... without society that job would not exist.
So yes you owe society more than a measly 5% of your value. You claim that without your work society would still give you 5% ... but without society you would get 0%.
And assuming it would work here.
Why not? Does universal health care benefit Europeans more than it would here because they are Europeans? Would free education benefit Germans more because they are German?
Really?
Enjoy

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAmerican☆Zen☯Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 63 by New Cat's Eye, posted 01-09-2015 10:21 AM New Cat's Eye has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 66 by New Cat's Eye, posted 01-09-2015 12:00 PM RAZD has seen this message but not replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1405 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 72 of 75 (801603)
03-08-2017 11:02 AM


The Evolutionary Argument for Basic Income
Adding this here to rekindle the thread:
quote:
Universal Basic Income Will Reduce Our Fear of Failure
In Brief
Universal Basic Income is a next step in the evolution of humanity. Thinking of economic and sociological ideas through the lens of Darwinian evolution adds an interesting perspective to discussions of the policy.
The New Evolution
Almost two centuries ago an idea was born with such explanatory power that it created shock waves across all of human society ...
The idea of which I speak is that through random mutation and natural selection, every living thing around us was created through millions and even billions of years of what is effectively trial and error, ...
... Discovering this process of evolution was one of the great accomplishments of our species. It’s also possibly the most powerful reason to support another world-changing idea an unconditional basic income.
Let me explain.
Markets as Environments
Our economy is a complex adaptive system. Much like how nature works, markets work. No one central planner is deciding what natural resources to mine, what to make with them, how much to make, where to ship everything to, who to give it to, etc. These decisions are the result of a massively decentralized widely distributed system called the market, and it’s all made possible with a tool we call money being exchanged between those who want something (demand) and those who provide that something (supply).
Money is more than a decentralized tool of calculation, however. It’s also like energy. It powers the entire process like the eating of food powers our own bodies and the sun powers plants. Without food, we starve, and without money, markets starve. ...
If you’ve ever played Monopoly this should be apparent. The game would not work if all players started the game with nothing. Some wouldn’t even make it once around the board. Additionally, if no one received $200 for then passing Go, the game would end a lot sooner. Ultimately the game always grinds to a halt once everyone but one person is all out of money, which is inevitable. No money, no purchases, no market, no game. Game over.
Supply and Demand as Trial and Error
With sufficient money however, markets adapt and evolve based on trial and error. Someone thinks of something to create or do. If people like it, it does well. If people don’t like it, it goes away. What does well is modified. If people like the modified version, it does well. If they don’t, it goes away. If they like it enough, the original version goes away. Survival of the fittest we call it. This is the evolution of goods and services, which runs on supply and demand, which both in turn run on money and one other thing the willingness to take risks.
Risks as Genetic Mutation
Taking risks is equivalent to random genetic mutation in this biological analogy. A new product or service introduced into the market can result in success or failure. ... We traditionally like to think of these risk-takers as a special kind of person, but really they’re mostly just those who are economically secure enough to feel failure isn’t scarier than the potential for success.
This isn’t just anecdotal evidence either. Studies have shown that the very existence of food stamps just knowing they are there as an option in case of failure increases rates of entrepreneurship. A study of a reform to the French unemployment insurance system that allowed workers to remain eligible for benefits if they started a business found that the reform resulted in more entrepreneurs starting their own businesses. In Canada, a reform was made to their maternity leave policy, where new mothers were guaranteed a job after a year of leave. A study of the results of this policy change showed a 35% increase in entrepreneurship due to women basically asking themselves, What have I got to lose? If I fail, I’m guaranteed my paycheck back anyway. Meanwhile, entrepreneurship is currently on a downward trend. Businesses that were less than five years old used to comprise half of all businesses three decades ago.
Meanwhile, entrepreneurship is currently on a downward trend. Businesses that were less than five years old used to comprise half of all businesses three decades ago. Now they comprise about one-third. Businesses are also closing their doors faster than new businesses are opening them. Until recently, this had never previously been true here in the US for as long as such data had been recorded. Startup rates are falling. Why? Risk aversion due to rising insecurity.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Markets as Democracies
Markets work best when everyone can vote with their dollars, and have enough dollars to vote for products and services. The iPhone exists today not simply because Steve Jobs had the resources to make it into reality. The iPhone exists to this day because millions of people have voted on it with their dollars. Had they not had those dollars, we would not have the iPhone, or really anything else for that matter. Voting matters. Dollars matter.
Evolution teaches us that failure is important in order to reveal what doesn’t fail through the unfathomably powerful process of trial and error. We should apply this to the way we self-organize our societies and leverage the potential for universal basic income to dramatically reduce the fear of failure, and in so doing, increase the amount of risks taken to accelerate innovation to new heights.
Failure is not an option. Failure is the goal. And fear of failure is the enemy.
It’s time we evolve.
What I said at the end of Message 1 was: "With no minimum wage and simplified forms this truly benefits small businesses and promotes job growth, and it allows people to add to their minimum wage by working at will without losing benefits."
Different argument, same conclusion. Putting my argument in an evolutionary paradigm, feeding and protecting the weakest and the hungriest allows them to contribute to the social group, and this improves the amount of survival for the species. This is why social species evolve.
Enjoy
Edited by RAZD, : .

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAmerican☆Zen☯Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)

Replies to this message:
 Message 73 by Phat, posted 03-10-2017 12:21 PM RAZD has replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1405 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


(1)
Message 75 of 75 (801967)
03-10-2017 3:49 PM
Reply to: Message 73 by Phat
03-10-2017 12:21 PM


Re: The Evolutionary Argument for Basic Income
I dont quite understand your basic model, but I am all for it as long as it benefits the declinuing middle class. (In America...not globally)
Personally I think the argument based on evolution as a model of economics is weak and smacks of Social Darwinism.
There is a strong argument based on economics alone that suggests a basic living minimum wage will improve the overall economy and people's lives along the way.
What it comes down to is transactions -- the 'health' of the economy is based on the number of transactions, where transactions are like the heartbeat of the economy. More transactions means better economy, one that grows and expands.
If you transformed all the transactions in one year to a single day event between two people, the economy would cease as soon as that was completed.
When you look at the economic spectrum and posit giving a person $10, the rapidity that the $10 is spent would be roughly inversely proportional to how rich they were.
But it's not just the person getting the $10 that benefits, because what it is spent on puts that money in someone else's pocket, and the process repeats.
It only ends when someone takes it out of circulation by putting it in savings (and even then part of it gets back into the economy via loans).
Also see "Money as Debt" (50 minutes), a history of banks and banking
The bit at the end about interest is interesting.
Perhaps it is why I fear socialism.
I also fear unfettered capitalism, however.
Unfettered capitalism and unfettered socialism are self defeating as they both tend towards extremes.
But mixing them creates a synergy where one benefits the other and the result is more than the sum of the parts. You end up with a vibrant diversified economy with many entrepreneurs creating businesses and jobs and many people able and willing to buy their products to enhance their lives.
Even in the US now we have a substantial mix of socialist programs and degrees of unregulated commerce.
These still hold true today, if not more so. Things on the right are social programs to either benefit people directly or to regulate against extreme capitalist predation.
Now if we DO want to indulge in a biological paradigm, it seems more appropriate to me to use an ecology model than a "mutation and survival" evolution model.
For instance a (seminal) paper: Hairston, Nelson G., Frederick E. Smith, and Lawrence B. Slobodkin. "Community Structure, Population Control, and Competition." The American Naturalist 94, no. 879 (1960): 421-25. JSTOR: Access Check. (known as the "Why is the world green" paper):
quote:
Abstract
In summary, then, our general conclusions are: (1) Populations of producers, carnivores, and decomposers are limited by their respective resources in the classical density-dependent fashion. (2) Interspecific competition must necessarily exist among the members of each of these three trophic levels. (3) Herbivores are seldom food-limited, appear most often to be predator-limited, and therefore are not likely to compete for common resources.
Species can come and go but the basic ecological structure remains. Population booms and busts occur but the long term trend is towards equilibriums.
Enjoy

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAmerican☆Zen☯Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 73 by Phat, posted 03-10-2017 12:21 PM Phat has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024