Is Finland onto something with this proposal? Vol. Universal Basic Income

FrankMatthews said:
I mean you did just say socialism is a policy from the right. I made that exact face.
I read a recent report, I believe it was the NY Times, which exposed that CEO for being sued by a co-founder, his own brother, for paying himself too much prior to that pay raise PR stunt.


Did everyone miss the part where it said this will cost $52B a year and their revenue is only $49B? Lol. The US has about $20 Trillion in debt. Applying this here is nothing short of delusional at this point. I will say that if the trillions we've spent on bailouts and stimulus and quantitative easing might have actually made a difference if it was injected directly into the economy in such a fashion. But of course you're gonna have inflation which would cause problems elsewhere in the economy. And at the end of the day welfare isn't gonna promote equality.
Click to expand...
I don't think funding it would be a problem honestly,I believe most people's arguments against it would be more social than economic.
 
StephenB said:
FrankMatthews said:
I mean you did just say socialism is a policy from the right. I made that exact face.
I read a recent report, I believe it was the NY Times, which exposed that CEO for being sued by a co-founder, his own brother, for paying himself too much prior to that pay raise PR stunt.


Did everyone miss the part where it said this will cost $52B a year and their revenue is only $49B? Lol. The US has about $20 Trillion in debt. Applying this here is nothing short of delusional at this point. I will say that if the trillions we've spent on bailouts and stimulus and quantitative easing might have actually made a difference if it was injected directly into the economy in such a fashion. But of course you're gonna have inflation which would cause problems elsewhere in the economy. And at the end of the day welfare isn't gonna promote equality.
Click to expand...
I don't think funding it would be a problem honestly,I believe most people's arguments against it would be more social than economic.
Click to expand...

How would it not be a problem, do you realize we are on the verge of an economic **** storm? The good times are over.
 
I am an economist and I support a basic income guarantee (or BIG). It would not discourage work, it would cause some inflation but poor people would still benefit on balance, cash is usually better than goods or vouchers for goods when it comes to welfare and a BIG would likely make recessions less severe and less prolonged. Furthermore, a BIG would allow people to be entrepreneurial and to develop better human capital, skills in other words.


I also support a BIG as a matter of political philosophy. We have private property in our society and it is, on balance, very beneficial. However private property does cost a lot in terms of money and it requires the deprivation or the threat of deprivation of liberty in order to be maintained. The police, the courts, the military all exist to make sure that a poor person cannot occupy a rich man's empty house or use his unused farm land or cut down his trees or otherwise make a living.

We use the power of state to make sure that wealthy people are far better off than they would be in a true state of nature. As a result, many people are worse off than they would be in a state of nature. Those people with only their labor deserve some compensation.

The fact is that the state makes sure that poor people do not tear up my vineyards and begin to engage in subsistence farming. I am grateful for that but I do believe that because I use the state to own far more land than I could physically control, I owe it to those poor people to make sure they have enough cash to in order to purchase adequate food, clothes and shelter.

Private property is a social construct and it is no more or no less legitimate than ensuring that every citizen has a certain minimum level of purchasing power through out their lives. This may sound like the stuff of Karl Marx but MLK, Milton Friedman, Thomas Paine and a whole host thinkers from across the political spectrum all have more or less endorsed a basic minimum income.
 
Rexanglorum said:
I am an economist and I support a basic income guarantee (or BIG). It would not discourage work, it would cause some inflation but poor people would still benefit on balance, cash is usually better than goods or vouchers for goods when it comes to welfare and a BIG would likely make recessions less severe and less prolonged. Furthermore, a BIG would allow people to be entrepreneurial and to develop better human capital, skills in other words.


I also support a BIG as a matter of political philosophy. We have private property in our society and it is, on balance, very beneficial. However private property does cost a lot in terms of money and it requires the deprivation or the threat of deprivation of liberty in order to be maintained. The police, the courts, the military all exist to make sure that a poor person cannot occupy a rich man's empty house or use his unused farm land or cut down his trees or otherwise make a living.

We use the power of state to make sure that wealthy people are far better off than they would be in a true state of nature. As a result, many people are worse off than they would be in a state of nature. Those people with only their labor deserve some compensation.

The fact is that the state makes sure that poor people do not tear up my vineyards and begin to engage in subsistence farming. I am grateful for that but I do believe that because I use the state to own far more land than I could physically control, I owe it to those poor people to make sure they have enough cash to in order to purchase adequate food, clothes and shelter.

Private property is a social construct and it is no more or no less legitimate than ensuring that every citizen has a certain minimum level of purchasing power through out their lives. This may sound like the stuff of Karl Marx but MLK, Milton Friedman, Thomas Paine and a whole host thinkers from across the political spectrum all have more or less endorsed a basic minimum income.
Click to expand...

Link to prove Milton Freidman endorsed this idea please...not saying you're wrong but I would love to hear his reasoning.
 
FrankMatthews said:
How would it not be a problem, do you realize we are on the verge of an economic **** storm? The good times are over.
Click to expand...
Closing of corporate tax loop holes,national legalization and taxation of marijuana,a small national sales tax etc....These would all raise plenty of funds.
 
Last edited:
I've decided I support this.

Now, who's going to be the first generous socialist to send me some of their next paycheck? Just DM me, we can set it up.
 
€800 extra income sounds great on paper, but I don't think it could work in our current American society. It would help some families that struggle to get by for sure, but I think the goal is that these people turn around and spend it on consumer goods, boosting the economy. I don't know how much it helps if the people save that money either vs spending it. I'm not an economic expert, but it doesn't seem like something that would work that well to me
 
We tried our own economic stimulus plan and it failed. I don't think government programs are the answer.

 
All plans for economic stimulus that don't give the money directly to the people they are trying to stimulate will fail. People are greedy by nature. Most of the economic stimulus has gone straight to big corporations that marked the era as some of their highest earning record profit periods.

So these big institutions act no different than your uninformed college freshman that got a refund check.

You're supposed to do something with that money. Not sit on it like it was earned.
 
Last edited:
Wr said:
All plans for economic stimulus that don't give the money directly to the people there are trying to stimulate will fail. People are greedy by nature. Most of the economic stimulus has gone straight to big corporations that marked the era as some of their highest earning record profit periods.

So these big institutions act no different than your uninformed college freshman that got a refund check.
Click to expand...

pretty much.

And where did that stimulus cash go? Record share buy-backs, merger and acquisitions, record profits, and record cash held overseas by big corporations. So it basically had the opposite effect. Meanwhile, capital expenditure is down and companies are laying off workers in droves. Why be productive when you get money directly from the govt (i.e. the taxpayers) vis-a-vis the banks? The whole incentive mechanism is off the rails now where companies get cash (at zero to negative interest) that's used to consolidate and merge, which boosts stock prices and results in too big to fail businesses that the govt bails out no matter what.

What a great system.
 
Last edited:
FrankMatthews said:
RustyShackleford said:
Ahhhh has no comeback

So the weak meme usage begins

Never change famb :lol:
Click to expand...

I mean you did just say socialism is a policy from the right. I made that exact face.


RustyShackleford said:
No it didn't, go read the recent reports.

It was a success
Click to expand...



I read a recent report, I believe it was the NY Times, which exposed that CEO for being sued by a co-founder, his own brother, for paying himself too much prior to that pay raise PR stunt.


Did everyone miss the part where it said this will cost $52B a year and their revenue is only $49B? Lol. The US has about $20 Trillion in debt. Applying this here is nothing short of delusional at this point. I will say that if the trillions we've spent on bailouts and stimulus and quantitative easing might have actually made a difference if it was injected directly into the economy in such a fashion. But of course you're gonna have inflation which would cause problems elsewhere in the economy. And at the end of the day welfare isn't gonna promote equality.
Click to expand...

I said a negative tax is an economic policy of the right.

It was one of the ideas Milton Freidman pushed.

Same way the EIC is an example of it, and it is also wildly popular with the left too.

But a lump sum is generally considered better because it doesn't distort behavior.

-btw, the CEO has had person problems, but him paying 70k has turned out to be a sucess with his company. You can question his motives for doing it, but the move itself worked.

-Lastly while the bailout ans stimulus weren't perfect by any means, they were needed. The banking industry going boom would have caused systemic problems down the line, and even the bailout of the auto industry proved successful.

The stimulus need help but there was too much money going towards funding research, and too many tax cuts. It should have been more focused on short term stuff.

And like I said, while America might not be ready for a program like tomorrow, we should begin the slow march towards it.

-Thanks for not shading the hell outta me from the jump famb. :lol:
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

The ultimate sneaker enthusiast community.

NikeTalk was created as a way of giving back to both the sneaker enthusiast community and to the greater global community of which we are all a part.

NikeTalk is NOT affiliated with Nike Inc. in any way, shape, or form. All opinions expressed herein do not necessarily reflect those of Nike, Inc.

© 1999-2024 NikeTalk.com

Share this page

Back
Top Bottom