Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[GavJ]

You get a sustainable economy in one of two ways:
1) ALL countries get to the point of having stringent eco laws, and nowhere is left for everyone to sneakily do their dirtywork under the table anymore. This makes a world sustainable economy.
2) A given country has stringent eco laws for itself, and completely bans imports of any materials that cannot prove themselves sources by equally stringent rules. This makes only the one country's economy sustainable, BUT they can do it all themselves without having to rely on anybody else to cooperate.

This WILL skyrocket prices of almost everything, which is precisely the mechanism by which sustainability is achieved.

U.S. forests, for example, are already pretty much sustained in size, but we import a bunch of wood from places that aren't sustainably forested. Ban such imports, and we will have a wood shortage, with very high prices. This will cause people to consume less wood down to the sustainable levels, by simply not being able to afford anything else. Companies will then eventually spring up that specialize in hyper-efficient reclamation and recycling of wood from buildings to be torn down, and will buy discarded furniture off of you, etc. Because it will suddenly be profitable to do these things.

Consumers on the other hand then compensate on their own by building smaller houses, fixing things more often than tearing down and starting over, using alternative materials, etc.



Merely enforce sustainability directly by law, and the economy will sort itself out. And also likely fall into severe recession for awhile, but still sort itself out.

[alexandertnt]

Tractors? What, are we in the 1900s?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vertical_farming

For example:

You entirely missed my point somehow...

First question is usually "who pays for it?" To which the answer is: we cannibalize existing benefits programs, and eliminate all the bureaucracy and means testing associated with them. Welfare, unemployment, social security, medicare....you get rid of all of those, divide the money spent on them by the number of people over age of majority in the country and write checks.

$5000 a year would leave you pretty screwed if you had a medical emergency. I suppose you could say that's one of those things that encourages people to work, but that means unemployed people don't have medical coverage (and insurance would be too expensive)... I don't like that idea very much.

Your points on scarcity largely come down to some sort of religious faith in science and technology, just believing that it will solve any problems that others have raised.

[GavJ]

You can't do basic income by just dividing up existing programs. They're barely sufficient for those people they cover right now. Dilute them, and they become useless to anybody on their own, which
1) Isn't the concept of basic income.
2) Screws over all of the people who need this stuff the most in exchange for rich people now getting a small insignificant check that used to go to those who needed it.

It requires cannibalizing programs AND (raising taxes to insane levels OR government buying out large amounts of the means of production and funneling its profits from running them to the people).

If all that doesn't add up to current levels of welfare programs as they were or higher, it will fail.

[LordBucket]

$5000 a year would leave you pretty screwed if you had a medical emergency.

How would it be better to have a medical emergency without the $5000?

Why do you require a perfect solution? Why do you selectively only apply your complaint to the solution I discussed when your alternative doesn't address it either?

just believing that it will solve any problems that others have raised.

It's a funny thing about bay12 discussions. I can write 2-3 times as much as anyone else, cite a dozen times as many sources as everyone else combined...like for example on the previous thread page I cited 27 sources over three posts, and yet everyone else on that thread page combined gave two links total. I can respond to individual 7 sentence posts with responses two and a half times as long with three supporting links. And if you very simply skim over a given thread page with page down, you can see that I routinely quote individual lines out of posts and separately address them.

...and yet still people will insist that I fail to address other people's points.

[LordBucket]

You can't do basic income by just dividing up existing programs. They're barely sufficient for those people they cover right now. Dilute them, and they become useless to anybody on their own

1) Justify that statement. You've made a claim. I don't believe you. Demonstrate it.

2) Let's pretend you're right. What solution do you propose? Convince me that you have a better alternative.

[GavJ]

How would it be better to have a medical emergency without the $5000?

Because the alternative is NOT having $0. The alternative is having $20,000 or whatever for those who need it, currently. Due to the fact that the welfare programs are concentrated on those in need -- people with disabilities who can't work, etc. These people get MORE than their equal share right now, which makes logical sense. If you distribute equally, you're decreasing their benefits.

if you divide the money amongst everybody, even the people who don't need it, you're just robbing from the poor and disabled to give to the rich and able and gainfully employed, dropping coverage for the people who are helpless from [just enough to get them what they need] to [a small fraction of that] and they then starve in the streets.

It's not an "imperfect but better solution!" It's a huge and dangerous and damaging step backward that would kill people.

1) Justify that statement. You've made a claim. I don't believe you. Demonstrate it.

?? for real? Do you have any experience with social programs in the US? This is common sense and arithmetic.

SSI disability payments, for example, require rigorous applications processes that usually include half a dozen denials, and require involvement of lawyers, even if you're like, missing all your limbs. And despite that, they still only provide about $750 in my area, a month, which needs to cover rent and clothing and all your other needs, including most of your food (food stamps in most cases are pathetically insufficient, since recent cuts). That's super barebones survival amounts.

http://kff.org/medicaid/state-indicator/ssi-with-disabilities-as-of-population/
2.2% of the population qualifies for this program.
So if you divide it amongst everybody, each citizen would get something like $10 a month.
INCLUDING the people who are still disabled and still can't work.

You've just reduced their entire possible income from $750 to $10 and killed them, or maybe if they're clever, they'll go rob a bank in order to get themselves incarcerated so they don't starve to death. Nice job, either way. Definitely makign the world a better place, there.

2) Let's pretend you're right. What solution do you propose? Convince me that you have a better alternative.

Easy: The status quo. I don't like the status quo much, but it's still a damn sight better than what you're suggesting.

Basic income cannot happen without HUGE amounts of additional government funding being introduced that currently doesn't exist. If you can come up with such a source of multiplying our tax dollars by a factor of 2-3x, then we can start talking about it.  That's what is required.

[alexandertnt]

How would it be better to have a medical emergency without the $5000?

Simple. Medicare coveres the cost.

EDIT: I just remembered that the USA doesn't do that. Most other countries do, however. Being an unemployed student (there's no friggin' jobs out here in the outback ) this Basic Income system seems to only hurt me.

Why do you require a perfect solution? Why do you selectively only apply your complaint to the solution I discussed when your alternative doesn't address it either?

Where did I require a perfect solution? My entire point is that your solution is terrable (not "not optimal") for medical treatment, which is a pretty important thing.

My "solution" (which is more just a speculative solution to a future problem, I wouldn't want to implement it now) at the very least doesn't require eliminating medical coverage for those on low/no income.

It's a funny thing about bay12 discussions. I can write 2-3 times as much as anyone else, cite a dozen times as many sources as everyone else combined...like for example on the previous thread page I cited 27 sources over three posts, and yet everyone else on that thread page combined gave two links total. I can respond to individual 7 sentence posts with responses two and a half times as long with three supporting links. And if you very simply skim over a given thread page with page down, you can see that I routinely quote individual lines out of posts and separately address them.

...and yet still people will insist that I fail to address other people's points.

Nobody cares how long your post is, Size != validity.

In your post you linked to, half the links are to Wikipedia, helpfully informing us of what Earth and New York is. The link to Neodymium is a fair point, but only in relation that material. 2 linkts are to the same page, and one link is to another one of your own posts, helpfully informing us that tractors are from the 1900's apparently and that its all about vertical farming now, despite the fact that "A commercial high-rise farm such as 'The Vertical Farm' has never been built".

Your argument on resources is that technology will improve to extract more resources, and that non-economically-viable resource deposits will become available in the future. Your link does not support this claim in regards to platinum.

Of course, there will still be platinum in the ground, but in extremely diluted form, rendering extraction impossible.

Your point on recycling is contradicted by the very link your provided.

There will still be recycling but demand, which will keep growing exponentially with the development of the emerging economies, will far outstrip supply.

[GavJ]

Nitpick regarding non-renewable resources as discussed in this thread: You can't use "economically viable" stocks as a valid reference, because by definition, when stocks run low, more will become economically viable, since the profit margin will increase, thus justifying higher extraction costs.

Such numbers are in reality almost completely useless for anything other than smoke and mirrors. Resource availability is, in reality, much more subjective guesswork. You can get better guesses from experts, but rarely do people even bother... and they're hard to find, so in practice, a lot of resource discussion is gut instinct, honestly.

Famously, nuclear energy, for example, has been argued to be a renewable resource by merit of there being enough of it to drive world energy consumption (even at several times current rates) for BILLIONS of years, thus equaling the longevity of solar and wind. To realize these numbers, though, you have to consider what stocks WILL BE economically viable LATER, after the easy stuff is snatched up. You can't pretend the low hanging fruit simply is "the only stuff in existence" which is generally what anybody quoting those numbers intends you to conclude.

Good read: http://sustainablenuclear.org/PADs/pad11983cohen.pdf

[LordBucket]

Because the alternative is NOT having $0. The alternative is having $20,000 or whatever for those who need it.

...note that your above-quoted-response is a response to my response to alexandertnt's post, not a response to my response to your post.

As such, I'm not certain whether this part of what you're saying is even relevant to what I said, or if there might have been a miscommunication due the fact that there are more than two people in this conversation.

However...to address the above-quoted section anyway:

The welfare programs are concentrated on those in need -- people with disabilities who can't work, etc.

1) This statement is ambiguous. If you're saying what I think you're saying, then you're factually incorrect, but it depends on what exactly you mean. Unemployment insurance and  disability insurance are different programs. Unemployment does not go to disabled people. It goes to people who are recently unemployed. Note: recently. Exactly how long it lasts depends but 26 weeks is the "standard" duration.

2) Why are people with disabillities who can't work "more important" than people without disabilities who nevertheless are unable to find work? You appear to prefer giving more money to fewer people with problems rather than less money to more people with problems.

For example, let's say there are (just making up numbers to illustrate the point) 15 million healthy people out of work. And let's say there are 5 million disabled people also out of work. And let's say you have 10 billion dollars to distribute.

Why would you rather give $20,000 only to the people with disabilities, leaving the other 15 million people destitute...rather than giving $5000 to each and every one of them...such that nobody is completely destitute?

$5000 is not enough to comfortably live on. But it is enough to eat. Why would you prefer 5 million disabled people living in houses and eating, but 15 million people starving? Why is that preferable to 20 million people homeless...but able to eat?

Do you see the issue?

if you divide the money amongst everybody, even the people who don't need it, you're just robbing from the poor and disabled to give to the rich and able and gainfully employed, dropping coverage for the people who are helpless from [just enough to get them what they need] to [a small fraction of that] and they then starve in the streets.

The purpose of giving it to everybody is to reduce bureaucratic waste. I don't have the numbers, and I suspect neither do you...but if I were to venture a guess, I suspect that the number of "rich people" in the country is probably not high enough that the numerically small number of payments going out to the would shrink the total size of the money pool enough to leave the relatively larger number of "not rich and unemployed people" people starving in the streets.

Again, as cited previously in the thread, the number for the US worked out to $5000/yr for everyone. $5000/yr is enough to eat. Yes, it's not enough to avoid homelessness. But it is enough to keep from starving.

You've just reduced their entire possible income from $750 to $10 and killed them

No. I've reduced their income to $5000/12 = $416/month. And in exchange, the 15 million people who were getting nothing at all are now also receiving $416/month.

This scenario is simplified. Some of those 15 million would presumably have been receiving unemployment insurance. However, stepping away from the made up numbers from before and checking something real...current U-6 unemployment rates, it's at 12.6% right now. Some quick math...319 million in the US, that's  40 million...whereas only 12.8 million people are receiving any welfare program. That leaves  ~28 million people who are not receiving money from these programs at all.

With basic income, the 12.8 million currently receiving money would receive less: $5000/yr instead of whatever they're getting now. But the 28 million currently receiving nothing would also be getting that same $5000/yr.

SSI disability payments, for example, require rigorous applications processes that usually include half a dozen denials, and require involvement of lawyers, even if you're like, missing all your limbs. And despite that, they still only provide about $750 in my area

Exactly.

The social security administration employs 65,000 people and has over 1300 offices. How much of their budget is eaten up by all that rigorous testing and bureaucracy? If there were a single, simple rule like "every US citizen over age 18 gets a check" that could be handled by a single office with probably fewer than 100 people. No rigorous applications, no denials, no lawyers...just, you're a citizen over age 18? Check automatically gets mailed to you.

Now, if you want to claim that the previously-discussed "disincentive to work" issue obviously doesn't apply to people making over...let's say $50,000/yr...and that therefore those people don't need to receive the $5000...ok, that might be reasonable.

But the moment you do that, you suddenly need to create infrastructure capable of verifying income. How much? MAybe a lot, maybe not very much. It's debatable. If that's a direction you want to go...we can address it. But I think it's not a point you're making, so forgive me if I don't go chasing down answers to questions you're not asking.

Basic income cannot happen without HUGE amounts of additional government funding being introduced that currently doesn't exist. If you can come up with such a source of multiplying our tax dollars by a factor of 2-3x, then we can start talking about it.  That's what is required.

Factually incorrect. The math has been done, and the number worked out to roughly $5000/person per year with no tax increases at all. Forgive me if I don't go tracking down that link again. Yes, $5000/yr is not enough to "fully feed, clothe and house everyone." But it doesn't claim to do that.

The purpose of basic income is not to "fully feed, clothe and house everyone." The purposes are to:

1) Provide a "minimal functional income" to eliminate extreme poverty for everyone, rather than exclusively the disabled or recently out of work
2) Provide a general smoothing out and possible eventual solution to the problem of long term technological unemployment
3) Eliminate bureaucratic waste such that more benefits money goes to actual people
4) Eliminate the "disincentive to work" problem that exists with certain other possible systems

And a few other things.

It does accomplish these things.

[GavJ]

Lordbucket, I'm not going to try and hit your moving target of an argument. THIS was your original quote:

The basic premise is that every citizen receives a check whether or not they're working and regardless of other factors. If you have a job, the basic income check is unaffected, and your income from the job is unaffected by basic income.

First question is usually "who pays for it?" To which the answer is: we cannibalize existing benefits programs, and eliminate all the bureaucracy and means testing associated with them. Welfare, unemployment, social security, medicare....you get rid of all of those, divide the money spent on them by the number of people over age of majority in the country and write checks.

Emphasis mine. You were NOT talking about only unemployed people. You were talking explicitly about every single citizen. I.e. including those who already have health insurance and jobs and are able bodied and have no need at all for welfare.

That is what I was responding to -- giving these people money who don't need it at all is taking money away from those who do need it. This is unacceptable, given that the money for those who do need it (like the disabled AND the unemployed) already barely covers their needs, as you yourself just agreed to above.

Now you're trying to change your story to it being about only various kinds of people in need. That's not what you said. If you have changed your mind about your starting comments on basic income, then great, we are in agreement.

No. I've reduced their income to $5000/12 = $416/month. And in exchange, the 15 million people who were getting nothing at all are now also receiving $416/month.

Not everybody applies for the below, but the MOST in need people will have several programs:
SSI is $741. Many people may qualify for other programs, depending.
Section 8 is (if you are also on SSI) an additional $353
Food stamps can be usually about $50
Vocational rehabilitation doesn't pay directly in checks, but does provide vital funding for re-education, etc. My friend who is on it gets her tuition paid for to get a new degree to help her become a more productive member of society despite her disability = about $500 a month in tuition.

If $5000 comes from liquidation of ALL programs, then for some people, you are actually replacing more like $1,644 in services in total with $416 for those who were most in need.
And your $416 is even more inefficient than the linear difference is, because when you're on starvation rations, you stay on starvation rations and can't move up. If you get short bursts of help to get back on your feet, like vocational rehab, then total government spending on you will be lower because you begin providing to society again.

Give a man a fish... you know the rest.



Let alone the fact that you're taking existing programs which DO feed a clothe and house people in need, and replacing them with programs that only feed, by your own estimates. This is an obvious downgrade in the system, why is this difficult to understand?

This makes it a worse investment overall by far for the nation than the status quo, without hugely more funding, like I said.

[Playergamer]

...May I say that this thread originally started as Jboy wondering why we need money, and used to have like 40 different people posting in it?

You have stripped up the rails and sold them for welfare money, people.

[Jboy2000000]

...May I say that this thread originally started as Jboy wondering why we need money, and used to have like 40 different people posting in it?

You have stripped up the rails and sold them for welfare money, people.

Im fine with this, Im actually happy it stemmed into such a brewing conversation.

[GavJ]

...May I say that this thread originally started as Jboy wondering why we need money, and used to have like 40 different people posting in it?

You have stripped up the rails and sold them for welfare money, people.

Money exists to fill in the gaps between otherwise inequally valued barter goods.
You value my cow at 500 units of value, I value your wagon at 400 units of value, money lets you count out exactly some stuff worth 100 units of value to give to me extra to make it add up to an equal trade.
Money also allows compact transportation of value to avoid wasteful hauling in some circumstances (this extends all the way to stocks and cattle futures of today).

OP is answered in 3 sentences = no need to continue focusing on OP if other interesting questions come up.

[Playergamer]

Yeah, I know, I wasn't saying the derail was bad, I was saying it's amazing how these things can happen in 3 pages.

((Yeah, I said 3. 50 post master race.))

[LordBucket]

You were NOT talking about only unemployed people. You were talking explicitly about every single citizen.

Yes! Correct. True! I am not talking about "only" unemployed people. I am talking about every citizen.

That doesn't change anything I said.

Now you're trying to change your story to it being about only various kinds of people in need.

No, I'm not. I simply gave the specific example of basic income going to unemployed healthy people...because that specific example was relevant to your post.

Yes: basic income goes to everyone. Or, more specifically "all citizens of age of majority." Some variations have suggested started benefits at age 16, or to everyone regardless of age to accomodate people with children. But it's certainly more a "for everyone" than a "only for specific subgroups."

Which I specifically said in the post of mine you're replying to:

he number for the US worked out to $5000/yr for everyone.

1) Provide a "minimal functional income" to eliminate extreme poverty for everyone, rather than exclusively the disabled or recently out of work

I'm not changing my story. I'm not moving my goalposts. You just need to not selectively interpret what I'm saying.

If $5000 comes from liquidation of ALL programs, then for some people, you are actually replacing more like $1,644 in services in total with $416 for those who were most in need.

Yes! This is also true, and I also acknowledged it repeatedly in the post you're replying to, though you appear to be changing your number from $750/month to $1644. The few people receiving  lot of benefits would receive less, but the lot of people receiving none...would receive some.

This is simply a different way of distributing the same amount of money, such that everybody gets enough to avoid extreme poverty, rather than only some people get enough to be reasonably comfortable while lots of people starve.

Let alone the fact that you're taking existing programs which DO feed a clothe and house people in need, and replacing them with programs that only feed, by your own estimates.

But  (going back to the specific example we're talking about, don't get confused and accuse me of "changing my goalposts") my program is "only feeding" 40 million people, whereas your program is "feeding, clothing and housing" only 12 million people...while leaving the other 28 million starving.

And, incidentally, it also addresses the issue of technological obsolescence, because if those numbers go from 40 million up to 60 million, then the basic income is still giving them each $5000/yr. Whereas our current selective welfare programs would only give those newly unemployed 20 million people unemployment benefits for (standard time is) 26 weeks and then after that, nothing.

This is an obvious downgrade in the system, why is this difficult to understand?

It's possible that this might be a values disagreement rather than a communication filure. That would be uncommon here on bay12, but it's possible that might be what's going on.

Let's clarify:


Hypothetical scenario 1:
 * 12 million people in houses, eating well
 * 28 million people starving in the streets


Hypothetical scenario 2:
 * 40 million people eating regularly but living in tent cities


Which of those scenarios do you prefer? If you can tell me that you prefer scenario 1 with 28 million people starving, then your argument is logically self consistent and there's nothing I can say about it.

Is that really what you're saying?