This sequence began with Arthur suggesting a guaranteed minimum income as a way of dealing with a perceived impending lack of jobs for many. It has come to be about money(in part because I asked how a gmi might be funded) and there is much to say on that front.
However, I don't believe that money is the key issue (though I do believe that our current money systems are breaking down if not actually broken). The key issue is this sentence taken from Tim's post below: A basic rule of economics, I mean real economics, not monetary delusions, is that you do not import what you can make locally. To keep everybody employed, and income distributed correctly, you put increased productivity into increased leisure time rather than increased profit taking. Sorry, Tim, this highlights a fundamental misunderstanding about economics (including what 'profit taking' means) but much as I would like to explore that the key issue is this notion of 'increased leisure time' being some sort of ultimate goal. The unemployed have ultimate leisure time. And in countries like mine (Australia) at least they have nearly enough money to enjoy it. Yet, they continually complain that they are bored and they are overrepresented in crime and other social dysfunction statistics. Until we do a lot of human development work, giving people more leisure time (even assuming we can do this economically) have proven to be a recipe for disaster. It seems to me that what people want is to feel like their lives are making a contribution, and that some of that contribution rubs off on them (ie that they get at least some discretionaly enjoyment opportunities as a result). In our modern world, that translates into - they want do useful work and to earn enough to spend discretionally. And, as I have said before, there is more than enough useful work to go around if just we can work out how to distribute and value it properly. regards -- Charles Brass mobile 0409 198 738 Quoting tim rourke <[email protected]>: > Often very interesting things come across this list. I have > monitored it for years but said little on it. > > It has some of the usual problems with internet discussion lists > which are not strictly monitored. You have a lot of people with > ideological type cognitive problems promoting their hobby horses. > And a lot of people who think they are taking art in some sort of > debate, who would not form or follow a coherent line of thought if > their lives depended on it. > > I do not have much patience for this. On some occasions when I > challenge ridiculous thinking, I get a really vicious, > narcissistic type of response and sometimes dumped off the list, > so I do not bother much anymore with trying to correct net > nonsense. I look for discussion lists, boards, and blogs where people > are not allowed to post drivel. > > Here are a few points I want to make. I know a bit about Basic > Incomes because I run a web site on the topic in Toronto. There are > a lot of people shooting their faces off about this, too, without > thinking it out and knowing what they are talking about. They claim > to be supporters, but they discredit the idea. > > One idea is that the cost of a BI program would be reduced because > part of the income gets taxed back. Nobody really into BI or other > things the same idea is called, supports that idea. There is no > sense in giving people money and taxing it back. It is not > politically supportable to give a Basic Income to a people who are > already very wealthy. This is the "wealthy banker's wife" dilemma. > > There is a cutoff where a Basic Income starts to be gradually > withdrawn and Income taxes gradually imposed. One test of how good a > model of a Basic Income is, is how much of the population will be on > the 'get' side, and how much on the 'give' side. The ideal is to > have the top 20% of the population paying. > > This is how civilization is supposed to work; everybody receives > according to his or her real needs. Taxes are imposed on those who > have more than they need in order to have an economy and a > democracy. Massive concentrations of wealth should never be tolerated. > > When concentration of wealth is tolerated, as it is now, the wealthy > begin playing with their money and abusing the unchecked power their > wealth gives them. They start to confuse wealth with money , as > though playing with money was what the economy is about and > making the things needed for living is trivial. "Manufacturing can > take care of itself". Pft! > > We are now getting the results of this, where one country has an > economy totally based on military power and exacting tribute form the > rest of the world. It can no longer make anything except weapons. It > thinks it can just get everything from China; the proles at home > are too uppity. > > So now it has a huge balance of payments problem. The Chinese do not > want their money anymore. In about another year they are going to > run out of capacity to pay for their imports and they are going to > start collapsing. > > They will spend about a generation rebuilding their economy, > relearning how to make things, how to do things, how to act like > human beings again, and what civilization is. > > A basic rule of economics, I mean real economics, not monetary > delusions, is that you do not import what you can make locally. To > keep everybody employed, and income distributed correctly, you put > increased productivity into increased leisure time rather than > increased profit taking. > > People are also learning that in order to maintain the land base > on which civilization depends, demand must be restricted to what > that land base can support. It is not; how high can we pump up > production and consumption? It is; how can we satisfy all needs with > the least effort and least resources? > > Where a Basic income fits into this is that it helps to break the > control of an owner class over people's lives, so they can work for > their benefit, not someone else's. When everyone is assured of their > basic well being, then they are prepared to accept less and to share > the world with other people. > > History is an endless conflict between civilized people and the cro- > magnons. The latter cannot grasp civilization; they see it as > something they can exploit. They see themselves as in competition > with everyone, instead of having a common interest. They need to > finally be removed from power and segregated away from the normal > human being, so we can finally complete the evolution of the human > and the fully developed civilization in which we humans can thrive. > > That is enough. tr > _______________________________________________ > Futurework mailing list > [email protected] > https://lists.uwaterloo.ca/mailman/listinfo/futurework > _______________________________________________ Futurework mailing list [email protected] https://lists.uwaterloo.ca/mailman/listinfo/futurework
