In this case, wouldn't this change in fiscal policy necessitate a change in monetary policy? I mean they would literally be printing $10,000 for every person in America, unless they somehow manage to divert a magical and impossibly huge revenue stream from elsewhere into this budget.
Which is why funding matters so much for this question. Fortunately, the federal government isn't allowed to print money (i.e. use seigniorage funding).
Furthermore, a modestly high basic income allows us to discard some other more suspect ways of ensuring a livable income, like the minimum wage (which is a tax paid almost entirely by low-income earners, very little by employers, and definitely not by 'the rich' - this cannot be repeated enough. If you find yourself starting to babble about subsidized wage slavery, please find your nearest EC10 textbook and rap yourself on the head with it, for I cannot do so over the Internet).
Can you elaborate on this? I'm not sure what you mean that the minimum wage 'is a tax paid almost entirely by low-income earners' (or maybe I'm reading you incorrectly).
Feral on
every person who doesn't like an acquired taste always seems to think everyone who likes it is faking it. it should be an official fallacy.
In this case, wouldn't this change in fiscal policy necessitate a change in monetary policy? I mean they would literally be printing $10,000 for every person in America, unless they somehow manage to divert a magical and impossibly huge revenue stream from elsewhere into this budget.
Which is why funding matters so much for this question. Fortunately, the federal government isn't allowed to print money (i.e. use seigniorage funding).
Didn't Nixon try something like that? I can't remember which president set price controls and generally mucked about with the value of a dollar...
edit: I guess whoever it was didn't actually print money. Hmm...
Eddy on
"and the morning stars I have seen
and the gengars who are guiding me" -- W.S. Merwin
*edit* enc0re, if the community in question is simply the drug-dealing community, I really don't see how it's relavent to this topic, since that's true for all criminal classes (unless there's a class I'm unaware of that doesn't contain criminals).
The community in question is the peer group of the GBI receiver in question. So roughly: people the same age and class living in his neighborhood. In that group it is possible (I would argue likely), that the prestige of being a drug dealer exceeds the prestige of working for McDonald's.
We already have elements of this with medicare, federal housing, SCHIP and the like. I wouldn't have a problem with something like this if it already leveraged existing funding for programs like that and used those instead of a new entitlement.
One major hurdle is trying to ensure the money is spent correctly. If you have some moron 10 grand he's not gonna put it away for a rainy day, he's walking over to walmart and buying a plasma TV. Please see the Katrina debit cards as an example of this.
This is why I have a problem handing out cash over something like SCHIP or EBT cards.
Furthermore, a modestly high basic income allows us to discard some other more suspect ways of ensuring a livable income, like the minimum wage (which is a tax paid almost entirely by low-income earners, very little by employers, and definitely not by 'the rich' - this cannot be repeated enough. If you find yourself starting to babble about subsidized wage slavery, please find your nearest EC10 textbook and rap yourself on the head with it, for I cannot do so over the Internet).
Can you elaborate on this? I'm not sure what you mean that the minimum wage 'is a tax paid almost entirely by low-income earners' (or maybe I'm reading you incorrectly).
A minimum wage is mathematically identical to a wage subsidy payed to those earning below the minimum wage, financed by a tax on those earning below the minimum wage. Your Principles of Micro textbook should contain the graph showing this.
A minimum wage is mathematically identical to a wage subsidy payed to those earning below the minimum wage, financed by a tax on those earning below the minimum wage.
Ah, gotcha. Okay.
Feral on
every person who doesn't like an acquired taste always seems to think everyone who likes it is faking it. it should be an official fallacy.
Increasing job opportunities through training would promote other options outside of crime, but I would argue that people get into crime because of the high wage rate that most jobs just can't compete with.
You watch too many movies. Your average "career criminal" isn't Scarface or whateverthefuck, he lives like shit and probably makes about as much a minimum wage job would pay.
Can we stop using the ghetto drug dealer as an example of all criminal activity?
We can use the Appalachian meth-whore as the example, if you'd like.
But then we'd have to talk about what she does to make her meth-money.
Modern Man on
Aetian Jupiter - 41 Gunslinger - The Old Republic
Rigorous Scholarship
Lets end corn subsidies and see what happens to Mcdonalds.
is anything on their menu not 85% corn syrup
Quite possibly the corn syrup used to fry the fries with.
Let's end all subsidies.
Welfare for people is an idea I don't hate. Welfare for businesses is completely unacceptable.
Under american business law a corporation is generally considered the same legal entity as a person, and as such has the same legal rights and duties.
Welfare isn't a right.
That and anyone using corporate personhood to justify their argument is a goose.
It's more accurate to say that though government in the US has no obligation to provide welfare of any sort, if it does do so you can't be denied such welfare without due process of law.
But if Congress decided to defund every welfare program tomorrow, people on welfare would have no legal recourse.
Oh, but they do have one legal recourse.
If Congress did that, everyone who voted for the defunding might as well move into the basement the next day.
It's still gooseshit. Again, the poverty trap is what has so dysfunctionally altered views of work among the lower classes, not your imagined bullshit about the morality of the poor.
Again, I think it's both. (and the morality bit is not unique to the poor).
I don't think many would agree that the poverty trap is the only reason.
Repeating warmed over prosperity theology bullshit doesn't help your case.
I am inclined to be sceptical of enc0re's stance on crime and poverty here, if only because I am so thoroughly brainwashed by the economic orthodoxy as to think that marginalism and the power of material want would dominate status-seeking even at low income levels. Actually, especially at low income levels.
I think hyperbolic preferences and attitudes toward risk play a non-trivial role here; regardless of the low average wage for assorted criminal activity, at the tail end of the distribution there are some very rich participants. The alternatives are perhaps not, strictly speaking, "earn $5 selling drugs" vs "earn $7 flipping burgers", but rather "earn $5 selling drugs + lifestyle lottery ticket worth $tons" vs "earn $7 flipping burgers". And so people buy it, for the same reason people buy lottery tickets at all, even as the house always wins.
Why have folks said that they could get behind a program, but not to the extent of $10,000/year? If anything, I'd argue the opposite. $10,000/year isn't nearly enough money to provide for someone unable to work, especially if they're actually unable to work and have increased living expenses because of whatever special need or disability they have. I'd also think it's not nearly enough to deter people from participating in crime.
Or are we assuming that we'll still have governmentally controlled rent, food stamps, etc? Because if so... that just seems needlessly complicated. Without these, I don't see a person surviving with any quality of life on $10,000/year.
Why not make the minimum income something that a person could actually live on and remove all of the extraneous programs. That, combined with some sort of "health care providers can't fuck you over" law better than the one we just got should be able provide for people to actually live.
But seriously, is this anything other than piling more money on top of every existing entitlement, incentive, and other program. Because, yeah... that would probably help some people, but it's not going to do anything to change the general nature of the American economy, I don't think. I thought perhaps we were talking about a fundamental change in how we do things.
where is this extra 1.5 trillion ~ 3 trillion coming from? what are we cutting and/or where are we getting extra revenue?
edit: or is that the question everyone is asking and no one has an answer for? because this thread is making me feel like im in college again, talking to people who have no experience in real life.
Sure. It's just that it would be tremendously difficult to raise enough tax revenue to fund a $10,000/year entitlement in a way which doesn't severely reduce economic growth and is still politically palatable. So no land value taxes, etc., or whatever one of dozens of modern schemes left-wing economists can concoct for extracting revenue.
And no revenue: no $10,000 program. Smaller amounts of revenue permit a smaller program, though, and with all the attendant special minor programs to meet special needs.
But seriously, is this anything other than piling more money on top of every existing entitlement, incentive, and other program. Because, yeah... that would probably help some people, but it's not going to do anything to change the general nature of the American economy, I don't think. I thought perhaps we were talking about a fundamental change in how we do things.
It would supplant most, if not all, federally-funded assistance programs.
Feral on
every person who doesn't like an acquired taste always seems to think everyone who likes it is faking it. it should be an official fallacy.
To both of you- I assumed the implication was that this program would effectively replace the current system, or at least a large part of it.
You could definitely substantially -- but not wholly -- reduce SS benefits with a GBI, which will help somewhat. I also favor a drastic reduction in military spending. But this doesn't get us nearly there.
I assumed the implication was that this program would effectively replace the current system, or at least a large part of it.
I think the assumption is that this would be means-tested.
This is a lot of assuming. I don't want to be the "please provide a 1,000 document detailing your plan, OP" guy, but I guess a lot of us are confused, even after reading the whole thread, what we're talking about.
If this would replace current programs... how is anyone going to survive on $10,000/year?
If it's means tested, what magical means test are we inventing that is better than the ones we already have?
I'm still looking for an explanation how handing out 10 grand to someone who didn't earn it can come with a guarantee they actually use the money for said purpose of the program: to not starve or be homeless.
Has it been addressed as to how a GBI would not lead to inflation?
Ronya, last page I thought
Thanks, big-ass fast moving thread, dividing attention between this and studying. Sorry, Ronya, I'll check it out.
No, it's not that you missed a post, no surprise there with this speed. It's just... argh, a constant background noise of pop-Keynesian influence in the popular understanding. Imagine you're a physicist, and everyone and their dog believes in mystical quantum healing. It is possible to believe, consistently, that government spending leads to inflation; it just doesn't make any goddamn sense when almost everyone has simultaneously imbibed a pop-monetarist influence in their popular understanding. At the same time. Arrrrrgh.
I don't know where you guys live, but I know that I could survive on a flat 10k a year as a single dude, but that isn't the point of the GBI.
The implication is that this GBI is used as a baseline to help those already making a low-level income to survive. Unless I am completely wrong about ronya's post....
I'm still looking for an explanation how handing out 10 grand to someone who didn't earn it can come with a guarantee they actually use the money for said purpose of the program: to not starve or be homeless.
Who said it needed one? (a guarantee, not an explanation)
I don't know if I agree with your logic regarding inflation, Ronya, as I think it inhabits too much of a vacuum. If we implement a GBI, those products which are disproportionately the majority of purchases by the poor, will inevitably ratchet up in cost because "there's money to be made." Especially considering the fact that the people who will receive the GBI are far more likely to spend the money than save/invest. As these goods are already considered necessary goods by the poor, they will continue to be bought, and I think most every company will take advantage of the extra cash in the market by raising their prices in order to maximize their profits.
I'm still looking for an explanation how handing out 10 grand to someone who didn't earn it can come with a guarantee they actually use the money for said purpose of the program: to not starve or be homeless.
Who said it needed one?
Gotcha, so the purpose of the program is to just hand out money, not actually help the poor.
Of course it is! Why would a government program actually aim to solve a problem?
Posts
Which is why funding matters so much for this question. Fortunately, the federal government isn't allowed to print money (i.e. use seigniorage funding).
Can you elaborate on this? I'm not sure what you mean that the minimum wage 'is a tax paid almost entirely by low-income earners' (or maybe I'm reading you incorrectly).
the "no true scotch man" fallacy.
Didn't Nixon try something like that? I can't remember which president set price controls and generally mucked about with the value of a dollar...
edit: I guess whoever it was didn't actually print money. Hmm...
and the gengars who are guiding me" -- W.S. Merwin
The community in question is the peer group of the GBI receiver in question. So roughly: people the same age and class living in his neighborhood. In that group it is possible (I would argue likely), that the prestige of being a drug dealer exceeds the prestige of working for McDonald's.
One major hurdle is trying to ensure the money is spent correctly. If you have some moron 10 grand he's not gonna put it away for a rainy day, he's walking over to walmart and buying a plasma TV. Please see the Katrina debit cards as an example of this.
This is why I have a problem handing out cash over something like SCHIP or EBT cards.
A minimum wage is mathematically identical to a wage subsidy payed to those earning below the minimum wage, financed by a tax on those earning below the minimum wage. Your Principles of Micro textbook should contain the graph showing this.
Ah, gotcha. Okay.
the "no true scotch man" fallacy.
But then we'd have to talk about what she does to make her meth-money.
Rigorous Scholarship
Oh, but they do have one legal recourse.
If Congress did that, everyone who voted for the defunding might as well move into the basement the next day.
Repeating warmed over prosperity theology bullshit doesn't help your case.
Ironic, me being an atheist.
Haha, silly Angel. Poor people don't vote.
Fake edit: unless they're old
the "no true scotch man" fallacy.
I think hyperbolic preferences and attitudes toward risk play a non-trivial role here; regardless of the low average wage for assorted criminal activity, at the tail end of the distribution there are some very rich participants. The alternatives are perhaps not, strictly speaking, "earn $5 selling drugs" vs "earn $7 flipping burgers", but rather "earn $5 selling drugs + lifestyle lottery ticket worth $tons" vs "earn $7 flipping burgers". And so people buy it, for the same reason people buy lottery tickets at all, even as the house always wins.
Or are we assuming that we'll still have governmentally controlled rent, food stamps, etc? Because if so... that just seems needlessly complicated. Without these, I don't see a person surviving with any quality of life on $10,000/year.
Why not make the minimum income something that a person could actually live on and remove all of the extraneous programs. That, combined with some sort of "health care providers can't fuck you over" law better than the one we just got should be able provide for people to actually live.
Revenue.
Can you explain a bit further? I am a bit economic-stupid
Shit be expensive broksi.
Or
We require more vespene gas.
and the gengars who are guiding me" -- W.S. Merwin
At 10k/year, the GBI would be by far the single largest expenditure in the federal budget. It would be double defense and Social Security combined.
Thank you.
where is this extra 1.5 trillion ~ 3 trillion coming from? what are we cutting and/or where are we getting extra revenue?
edit: or is that the question everyone is asking and no one has an answer for? because this thread is making me feel like im in college again, talking to people who have no experience in real life.
And no revenue: no $10,000 program. Smaller amounts of revenue permit a smaller program, though, and with all the attendant special minor programs to meet special needs.
edit: god DAMN I am slow.
No idea what the real numbers would be, though.
Rigorous Scholarship
It would supplant most, if not all, federally-funded assistance programs.
the "no true scotch man" fallacy.
I am in the corner, sobbing quietly.
But I'm actually very impressed with the amount of research ronya has done into this topic. Bravo.
and the gengars who are guiding me" -- W.S. Merwin
Ronya, last page I thought
You could definitely substantially -- but not wholly -- reduce SS benefits with a GBI, which will help somewhat. I also favor a drastic reduction in military spending. But this doesn't get us nearly there.
Thanks, big-ass fast moving thread, dividing attention between this and studying. Sorry, Ronya, I'll check it out.
This is a lot of assuming. I don't want to be the "please provide a 1,000 document detailing your plan, OP" guy, but I guess a lot of us are confused, even after reading the whole thread, what we're talking about.
If this would replace current programs... how is anyone going to survive on $10,000/year?
If it's means tested, what magical means test are we inventing that is better than the ones we already have?
bing bing bing, we have a winner.
No, it's not that you missed a post, no surprise there with this speed. It's just... argh, a constant background noise of pop-Keynesian influence in the popular understanding. Imagine you're a physicist, and everyone and their dog believes in mystical quantum healing. It is possible to believe, consistently, that government spending leads to inflation; it just doesn't make any goddamn sense when almost everyone has simultaneously imbibed a pop-monetarist influence in their popular understanding. At the same time. Arrrrrgh.
I don't know where you guys live, but I know that I could survive on a flat 10k a year as a single dude, but that isn't the point of the GBI.
The implication is that this GBI is used as a baseline to help those already making a low-level income to survive. Unless I am completely wrong about ronya's post....
Who said it needed one? (a guarantee, not an explanation)
Gotcha, so the purpose of the program is to just hand out money, not actually help the poor.
Of course it is! Why would a government program actually aim to solve a problem?