On the Nature of Things | Forum

noddy wrote:

Simple Minded wrote:

noddy wrote:in my example above i neglected to mention that my 260 billion is based on every single person getting this survival income, including newborns and the filthy rich.

also, the 150 billion that goes to social security, only about 50 billion of that actually leaves government as payments, the rest is admin costs.

this is with no adjustment to tax rate and assuming we keep army,hospital,schools going, we just need to cull the rest to make it work.

not sure how the feedback effect of all that extra money goes in terms of stimulus or inflation, those numbers are always plucked from the back passage no matter who does them.

I still think it is "worth it." I'm just not payin!

this theory is based off you payin already, just tweeking the way that payin gets distributed.

F**k Me! We're back to the ever changing definition of "we" again.

As they said in the old days Moolan Labia!

noddy wrote:in my example above i neglected to mention that my 260 billion is based on every single person getting this survival income, including newborns and the filthy rich.

In Milton Freedman's proposal basic income is called "negative income tax". So everybody "gets" it, but rich(er) people pay more taxes (can still be flat or progressive) which means there is a break even point somewhere. Personally I think babies should not receive a basic income yet tho

also, the 150 billion that goes to social security, only about 50 billion of that actually leaves government as payments, the rest is admin costs.

Automated unconditional basic income would then mean a considerable saving.

this is with no adjustment to tax rate and assuming we keep army,hospital,schools going, we just need to cull the rest to make it work.

I think it could work even if those other issues remain unchanged, but improvement can be made on those issues as well. Makling drugs legal for instance would save loads.

not sure how the feedback effect of all that extra money goes in terms of stimulus or inflation, those numbers are always plucked from the back passage no matter who does them.

Indeed. To change one variable in a complex system may have unforeseen consequences. For worse.. or even better. There exists here an independent scientific battery of economists who calculate all the consequences, as good as they can get, of proposed policies by current or new gvts. They also calculate the effects all political programs of all parties before the election. Maybe they pick this one up one day and do the calc SM is asking for.

Simple Minded wrote:

Parodite wrote:Ok, was just worried you lived on a cloud unaware of the reality on the ground, of your life there. In the USA while you pay your taxes.

No problemo. I appreciate your concern. As Alex noted, no two people ever climb the same mountain. Or even, Hilary's humps!

In the Canadian example, for five years, the people on the receiving end thought it worked, it appears the people on the paying end did not agree. The bigger "we" won! Yea Democracy!

Democracy without salespeople ain't gonna happen. If you want to sell the plan to me, show me the numbers. And don't forget to ID payers and receivers. that's all.

I wonder whether you or I voluntarily give a higher percentage of income to charity?

Maybe your imagination of me is "Trumped" by your imagination of the US?

I don't know which one of us is paying more to voluntary charity. But I do know that our governments have decided already how much we need to pay for charity, whether we like it or not.

I'm very ok though with a social security system I pay taxes for. The problem with our current social security system is that it costs much more than necessary and that socialist gvt nannies are interfering with people's individual choices, peaking over their shoulders etc. It also is not sustainable in the long run.

Simple Minded wrote: Moolan Labia!

rule 34

noddy wrote:

Simple Minded wrote: Moolan Labia!

rule 34

Fruit of the Loom has different marketing strategies Down Under....

Parodite wrote:
I don't know which one of us is paying more to voluntary charity. But I do know that our governments have decided already how much we need to pay for charity, whether we like it or not.

I'm very ok though with a social security system I pay taxes for. The problem with our current social security system is that it costs much more than necessary and that socialist gvt nannies are interfering with people's individual choices, peaking over their shoulders etc. It also is not sustainable in the long run.

Engineering a better "society" is no different than engineering a better bridge, car, mousetrap, or any other product.

Start with desired specifications, costs, quality, delivery deadlines, define who are your target consumers and acceptable suppliers, and finally create the advertising campaign.

In politics, you start with the advertising campaign, and if your product sucks, you just continually revise your advertising campaign because your customers are captured right up until the moment you find yourself hung by the neck from a lamp post....

I don't think workers who fight for better working conditions and pay are trying to "engineer" a society. Or people who loose their jobs or can't work for other reasons fight for a social security system will vote for political parties who "advertise" such jolly ideas.. just because they have fancy dreams about an ideal world. People want food on the table, a roof over their heads and good medical treatment when they need it at all times. This drives everything.

Simple Minded wrote: Still we are left with subjective, and hugely personal interpretations and definitions of terms. Add to that, that all is flux, and the discussion becomes endless.

I think this summarizes every post you ever made.

Parodite wrote:I don't think workers who fight for better working conditions and pay are trying to "engineer" a society.

Depends on how you fight.

Or people who loose their jobs or can't work for other reasons fight for a social security system will vote for political parties who "advertise" such jolly ideas.. just because they have fancy dreams about an ideal world. People want food on the table, a roof over their heads and good medical treatment when they need it at all times. This drives everything.

Capitalism is the proven best delivery system for these aims. Whenever you're ready.

Mr. Perfect wrote:

Simple Minded wrote: Still we are left with subjective, and hugely personal interpretations and definitions of terms. Add to that, that all is flux, and the discussion becomes endless.

I think this summarizes every post you ever made.

which kinda splains why the discussions never end......

Parodite wrote:I don't think workers who fight for better working conditions and pay are trying to "engineer" a society. Or people who loose their jobs or can't work for other reasons fight for a social security system will vote for political parties who "advertise" such jolly ideas.. just because they have fancy dreams about an ideal world. People want food on the table, a roof over their heads and good medical treatment when they need it at all times. This drives everything.

I think any self-aware individual desires a better life. To me the interesting aspect of their argument, is, are they actually aware of who funds better? If so, they are both self-aware and socially-aware.

Anyone can say, I can imagine a better world than the one that exists, and we all say it. But how society/culture has evolved to it's current state, is an iterative, engineering process. Which often involved decades or centuries of trial and error, gain and loss, and lessons learned.

To my simple mind, the interesting questions to ask Fred, when Fred says "I imagine better a better bridge, automobile, or nation." are,
1. Explain to me how the current status evolved.
2. Give me a cost/benefit analysis of your imagined change, specifically who benefits at whose expense.
3. Most importantly, tell me about actual costs, hidden costs, unintended consequences, and perverse incentives that your plan includes.
4. Lastly, how is it sustainable?

Those who imagine better are usually nice, well intentioned people. But if all they can talk about are the pros of their plan, and can't elaborate on the cons of their ideas, IMSMO, it means they have not thought it thru, are intentionally deceptive, willfully ignorant, mentally deficient, or like most of us, a bit too lazy to do so.

Entirely possible to make something better (a 100% safe car or airplane, for example), but how often is society willing to pay for it?

As Keynes pointed out, "In the long run we are all dead!" Humans focus on short term, and close to home.

All of which is not to say that the ubiquitous exchange of "I can imagine better, and if you're not in lockstep with my thinking you are intellectually or morally inferior!" is not endlessly entertaining.

Which is what draws us idealists together....

Parodite wrote:I don't think workers who fight for better working conditions and pay are trying to "engineer" a society. Or people who loose their jobs or can't work for other reasons fight for a social security system will vote for political parties who "advertise" such jolly ideas.. just because they have fancy dreams about an ideal world. People want food on the table, a roof over their heads and good medical treatment when they need it at all times. This drives everything.

At which point I say open up your checkbook or wallet, or volunteer your time and get that warm fuzzy sense of self -worth that comes from voluntarily helping others.

The intended beneficiary may suffer a long time before you convince enough people to change the current system.

Simple Minded wrote:

Mr. Perfect wrote:

Simple Minded wrote: Still we are left with subjective, and hugely personal interpretations and definitions of terms. Add to that, that all is flux, and the discussion becomes endless.

I think this summarizes every post you ever made.

which kinda splains why the discussions never end......

That's not all it explains.

Mr. Perfect wrote:

Simple Minded wrote:

Mr. Perfect wrote:

Simple Minded wrote: Still we are left with subjective, and hugely personal interpretations and definitions of terms. Add to that, that all is flux, and the discussion becomes endless.

I think this summarizes every post you ever made.

which kinda splains why the discussions never end......

That's not all it explains.

kinda like a massive Unified Field Theory which only really, really, really smart people who refuse to share their base data with others can understand. Right?

I don't know. All I know is you rarely take a firm position on anything and blame it on an inability to define terms and because everything is in flux and there are always more possible options.

Mr. Perfect wrote:I don't know. All I know is you rarely take a firm position on anything and blame it on an inability to define terms and because everything is in flux and there are always more possible options.

That's an understandable interpretation.

I think my positions are pretty firm, but since I'm not selling anything, nor trying to get anyone's vote, and since in my experience the same word often gets interpreted differently by most people (especially relative terms left, right, liberal conservative, rich, poor), I really don't expect consensus.

Then when you get into other terms like fair, just, compassionate...... people really are climbing different mountains.

The banter and discussions are fun, but it seems even Americans don't agree much on the above, the larger the audience, the more the opinions differ.

The banter and discussions are fun, but, whether everyone on the internet agrees or disagrees with me, it is not going to affect my quality of life very much.

Dallas Cowboys or Pittsburgh Steelers?

sm mumbles about flux
mr p mumbles about capitalism.

basic income is anti capitalist flux.

this is known.

Methinks, capitalism is not just people who own a business, it includes employees who negotiate terms and form unions for more powah, regulating bodies to make sure capitalism works smoothly as it gets, in general the rule of law to manage all sorts of crime. It also includes social security systems, some maybe better than others, to secure enough social cohesion for capitalism to function properly. And last but not least democracy where all various competing interests (included ideas/opinions about what is "right", "just" and "moral") battle to get what they want and as much of it as possible. Capitalism without these means very little.

Indeed. With fiat currency, the health care monopoly and fractional reserve banking there has been no true capitalism in the US during my lifetime.

A guaranteed basic income makes sense. The average US poverty food allowance is about $125 per person. Give everybody $125 per month and the only people who will notice are the clerks and bureaucrats whose salaries were paid by pretending to qualify applicants.

http://kff.org/other/state-indicator/av ... -benefits/

Nonc Hilaire wrote:Indeed. With fiat currency, the health care monopoly and fractional reserve banking there has been no true capitalism in the US during my lifetime.

Yep. We have simply been the most capitalist of the developed countries.

A guaranteed basic income makes sense.

Could be. But it will never happen.

a basic income that only covers food isnt really a basic income, it needs to cover the full baseline living costs including housing.

one of the theoretical benefits is gutting the administration of the social security system and associated non functioning government charities which have extremely poor ratios of money in to money out.

noddy wrote:a basic income that only covers food isnt really a basic income, it needs to cover the full baseline living costs including housing.

You have to start somewhere. Eat that elephant one bite at a time. Turn that aircraft carrier.

It's already been turned. The left turned the west into the blender, it's all over except the crying. Western nations are bankrupt and non-reproductive. The elephant has already been eaten.

Mr. Perfect wrote:The left turned the west into the blender

Everyone took turns at revving the blender, including you.

Not really, no.