You are viewing a single comment's thread from:
RE: Property rights and Basic Income - A viable solution is possible
It is a complex system which can react in unintended way if any string is pulled. We must redefine our goal, which should be to find an optimal balance where robots who work hard and deliver benefits are rewarded and yet where the society is not an unhealthy place to exist. We are aiming for a moving target where trade-offs must be respected as we pursue a common goal. The first problem is that we cannot agree on what that goal should be.
I think he is proposing removing this decision. You say WE. That ultimately boils down to X amount of individuals deciding on behalf of everyone. The WE essentially become the central planners. Central planning will always fail in the long run. I believe he was proposing a basic income in terms of shares in the economy so as the economy improves regardless of the producers all share holders (which would be everyone) would receive a portion. If the economy does well the portion grows. If the economy fails the portion shrinks. Yet if the economy fails this will happen under every system. You eliminate central planning and simply give a portion of income from shares on a daily basis.
Whether it would work or not... not sure. I do know that central planning ultimately always fails. It involves people making decisions on behalf of all others and this leads to corruption, or sometimes it simply fails because the decision makers didn't have sufficient knowledge to make some correct decisions. This eventually will always be the case in such scenarios with people. None of us can know all the details. There is only one thing we have that can react to change and new creations, new information, and new skills and requirements quickly. So far that thing is the market. (If it is free and not hindered by central planners).
Such a direction allows for anyone to do nothing and be supported by those who choose to work. This brings down the expectations and thus the total outputs. For example, many people work hard for many years as to earn a pension. If they were given the basics without any contribution, how many would just float? This then becomes a drag on growth, innovation, and reward systems that promote risk taking for significant rewards. It also lowers the total pool of people who will choose to become highly qualified in various fields. Without the potential significant pain of failure, there is little growth. Without the lure of significant benefit, there is little growth. We must avoid such situations as the rate of growth is important.
We have seen such stagnation in 3rd world countries where many survive on the governments subsidies. History shows a similar pattern. Low growth, little stimulus, high unemployment, much lower standards of living, smaller economies leading to less demand for products, low demand stifles innovation as there are not markets to support it, which makes education not as important, so stagnation occurs. This is not a healthy system.
Look to nature, which tends to optimize resource constrained systems. Do all the plants in the rain forest equally share the sunlight? No. This would lead to homogeneous environments which are susceptible to catastrophic impacts from unexpected entities (fungus, predators, invasive species, etc.). Instead, there is an imbalance which drives innovation necessary to survive. It creates a complex yet highly diverse and successful ecosystem which is resistant to a variety of external/internal dangers.
If you want an example in nature where a base level of resources are allocated to an entire community, then look to the ants or termites. But these highly successful colonies are strictly controlled by a central authority (queen). Their success has also caused stagnation, as they have not evolved very much over the millennia. I don't think that is where we want to go as a society.
It actually doesn't. You are mistakenly comparing this to socialist redistribution. In which case you would be correct. He was not proposing that. He was proposing something that has never been done before so those comparisons do not fit.
He was proposing more like every person is given a share in a company. Let's call it our GLOBAL or NATIONAL economy depending upon how large the location was it was implemented.
You have one share that you cannot get rid of. You CAN invest your own dividends to get more shares over time if you want.
When the economy makes income it distributes dividends to all shareholders based upon how many you have. In a sense, he was talking about something like Steem Power, but unlike steem power you cannot get rid of it.
I'd even argue that people need not reinvest in it. The idea is that if the economy fares well then those dividends paid on a daily basis should hopefully be sufficient for basic food, clothing, and shelter. They may be worth more than that, but the hope is they would provide that.
So let's say the economy does poorly and it DOES not produce enough. Now that dividend would not be enough to provide those things. Yet, neither would those needed resources materialize in another system simply because you willed them into existence.
He was also NOT proposing people not work. He was proposing a way such that as we increasingly remove the need for some human jobs, that people could still be cared for. You would be receiving a dividend based upon how the economy fared. This would not stop you from intentionally doing other work, being entrepreneurial and getting income and producing in other ways. However, if you do invent something and are doing great then odds are the economy is going to do better as well, so all dividends increase.
It requires no central planning. It does not require planned handouts. It is purely mathematical based upon what funds and resources may actually be there. It does not magically solve all problems as this cannot be done. If the resources are not there then they cannot be magically distributed regardless of what system you use.
He is also NOT proposing taking funds from people and redistributing them. It is interesting and the first time I've heard such a proposal. As such it gives a lot to think about.
However, it is NOT what you just described. That fits nicely with traditional socialist and redistributionist ideas. I'm a bit opponent of such ideas.
EDIT: One thing I am unclear of (like I said this is a new idea) is where this idea of the economy doing well, where IT's FUNDS come from. Is it a tax? If so then that is redistributionist.
Given a fixed supply of money and a growing supply of goods prices will fall. This system prints new tokens to match and counter natural deflation in a productive economy.
How about increasing supply of money used to finance UBI. There would be higher nominal value of UBI causing inflation but the real value would be the same. Money is neutral.
I think you are bringing your own preconceived ideas without reading what I wrote.
If the economy is not growing then there is no basic income. If it does grow it isn't funded by taxation nor price inflation.
I like the perspectives and insights you wrote. I find them to be relevant, but not comprehensive to the problem at hand. We are all discussing our preconceived ideas (which makes this a productive discussion). I find there are other aspects which are part of a hugely complex situation. Theories of changing global macro/micro-economics cannot be easily covered in a blog. All fiat currency, in one sense is a measure of work/worth and flexes based upon many factors.
My point is this: when it comes to the work and reward of people over generations, the situation becomes very complex. There are social, emotional, economic, and psychological, and time-based factors in play. To define a strategy around a 'basic income' requires such a measure to first be defined. This is problematic.