Harry Veeder wrote:
The economic imperative is one of many arguments for a basic income, but by itself it is no more persuasive than the argument that slavery is bad because it is economically inefficient.
I agree with the logic, but do they discuss the economic imperative in the various Basic Income web sites? They should. It might attract some support from conservative capitalists.
Ford goes out of his way to emphasize his capitalist bona fides. He briefly discusses Marx, assures the reader he is no communist, and says something like: "even though Marx was wrong we must admit he got X and Y right . . ."
It seems to me that an intellectually honest person who proposes this model for the economic system, and this solution, should give some credit to Marx. I think Marx was remarkably prescient and right about wide range of things. This proposed solution, the Virtual Currency, Basic Income and other ideas owe a lot to socialism and communism -- as well as capitalism. I would call them hybrid systems. I see nothing wrong with a mixed or hybrid economic system. Some people say it is inherently less efficient than a pure capitalist system. That may be -- I cannot judge -- but so what? Efficiency is not the only desirable characteristic. Being inefficient means it does not make the best use of money, and in the aggregate we are not as wealthy as we would be with a pure system. That's fine with me. We should trade off some efficiency in return for stability and humanitarian concerns.
It is impossible to read Marx in the original but I have read several summaries of his ideas. Ford says that Marx defined the problem correctly for the most part but his solution (communism) does not work. I agree.
- Jed
