Unlimited and unconditional money for banks that lost billions speculating and also paid billions of bonuses for the people speculating are not a capitalistic fairytale but reality.
I never heard, that speculators or banks had to pay back their bonuses or gains they earned in the good years, when they lost billions in other years.
I am still not sure, if the world would not have fared much better, when the billions and billions that where given to the banks to rescue them had been given to all the people (and thus stimulate the whole economy not only the bonus-people). The banks took the money and at least in Europe still don't lend the money to firms that need it. We have now at least 6 years after the finance shock of 2008, but at least in Europe the finance crisis is still not over!
A good tour of casual criticism of basic income. Its couched in 'if everything were the same as today' terms, ignoring other changes that would have to be made to implement BI nationwide.
Some issues are fake, like suggesting that different states could afford different levels of BI. Who says its a state program? That's a red herring.
Suggesting its supported by taxation is another red herring. Inflation would be slightly affected; but given that 99% of the money is hoarded by a few, what the other 1% get is actually a small piece of the pie. Inflation would be a small issue. So issuing new money to cover the BI would be a simple approach, which also serves to counter (in America at least) the huge inequalities present.
Lastly, there's irrelevant discussion of means testing to 'deserve' the BI. That shows the author must have some fundamental misunderstanding of what a Basic Income is, and it isn't a means-tested welfare benefit. Its a break from that model, by design.
One thing that seems most related to income of any type is health care, yet this doesn't seem to be mentioned anywhere. I would love to see a country that provided UBI and healthcare where the countries citizens were not enslaved to the system for years to pay for these two things.
First sentence:
"Unconditional basic income is being heralded as the solution to all of Europe’s financial problems ..."
I still have to find somebody who beliefs that a UBI is a solution to ALL of Europe’s financial problems. Even the biggest UBI fans I know wouldn't claim that.
Could we try to keep hacker unrelated politics out of HN. Or at least use better sources than this neoliberal trashzine called New Economy.
"In addition, higher taxes are discouraging to innovation and businesses, which may be prompted to move elsewhere, outside a UBI zone." - unsupported assertion.
"if a UBI payment were to be small enough to be financed by existing tax rates, it could lead to mass starvation and poverty" - really?
"Few supporters of basic income have been able to prove it would be less costly for states to implement than existing welfare offerings" - the point is not that it is less costly - UBI is a replacement, so the cost would be equal or maybe more. If less, that's a bonus
"What’s more, a basic income could have a detrimental impact on inflation." - economic illiteracy.
"Conversely, a universal basic income free of sanctions and restrictions would push wages upwards, and have an inflationary effect." - any inflationary impact would be one-time. Also, what you call wage inflation, others would call deacreasing inequality. US wages have remained static in real-terms for decades.
"An unconditional basic income discourages career progression and innovation, could potentially have detrimental economic effects" - pure conjecture, or just plain wrong. Innovation happens because it is driven by intellectual curiosity and passion - by not having to worry about financial security, people are freer to innovate. Up till a few centuries ago, only the rich could afford to be scientists, vide Newton.
This is not a serious exploration of UBI - its a cheap hatchet job.
A BI also means that one can stop working and focus on innovation, without the worry of starvation. I cannot quit my day job and work 100% on a brand new startup I want to make because I have mouths to feed. I literally can't afford to make a startup. Had I been 23, no child, living with parents, eating ramen, and healthy as an ox, sure no problem.
So yeah, lots of the statements in the article seem unfounded. I do get the feeling that BI opponents have this "fairness" attitude: You didn't work for your cash, I did, why should you have money. It's the same thing as "your happiness makes mine lesser".
9 comments
[ 3.0 ms ] story [ 37.1 ms ] threadI never heard, that speculators or banks had to pay back their bonuses or gains they earned in the good years, when they lost billions in other years.
I am still not sure, if the world would not have fared much better, when the billions and billions that where given to the banks to rescue them had been given to all the people (and thus stimulate the whole economy not only the bonus-people). The banks took the money and at least in Europe still don't lend the money to firms that need it. We have now at least 6 years after the finance shock of 2008, but at least in Europe the finance crisis is still not over!
Some issues are fake, like suggesting that different states could afford different levels of BI. Who says its a state program? That's a red herring.
Suggesting its supported by taxation is another red herring. Inflation would be slightly affected; but given that 99% of the money is hoarded by a few, what the other 1% get is actually a small piece of the pie. Inflation would be a small issue. So issuing new money to cover the BI would be a simple approach, which also serves to counter (in America at least) the huge inequalities present.
Lastly, there's irrelevant discussion of means testing to 'deserve' the BI. That shows the author must have some fundamental misunderstanding of what a Basic Income is, and it isn't a means-tested welfare benefit. Its a break from that model, by design.
I still have to find somebody who beliefs that a UBI is a solution to ALL of Europe’s financial problems. Even the biggest UBI fans I know wouldn't claim that.
Could we try to keep hacker unrelated politics out of HN. Or at least use better sources than this neoliberal trashzine called New Economy.
"if a UBI payment were to be small enough to be financed by existing tax rates, it could lead to mass starvation and poverty" - really?
"Few supporters of basic income have been able to prove it would be less costly for states to implement than existing welfare offerings" - the point is not that it is less costly - UBI is a replacement, so the cost would be equal or maybe more. If less, that's a bonus
"What’s more, a basic income could have a detrimental impact on inflation." - economic illiteracy.
"Conversely, a universal basic income free of sanctions and restrictions would push wages upwards, and have an inflationary effect." - any inflationary impact would be one-time. Also, what you call wage inflation, others would call deacreasing inequality. US wages have remained static in real-terms for decades.
"An unconditional basic income discourages career progression and innovation, could potentially have detrimental economic effects" - pure conjecture, or just plain wrong. Innovation happens because it is driven by intellectual curiosity and passion - by not having to worry about financial security, people are freer to innovate. Up till a few centuries ago, only the rich could afford to be scientists, vide Newton.
This is not a serious exploration of UBI - its a cheap hatchet job.
So yeah, lots of the statements in the article seem unfounded. I do get the feeling that BI opponents have this "fairness" attitude: You didn't work for your cash, I did, why should you have money. It's the same thing as "your happiness makes mine lesser".