Universal Welfare: yea or nay?

[Zeetopolis]

Holy crap. This is perhaps the most ridiculous idea I have ever heard. The very essence of it goes against every law of economics in existance.

IF YOU GIVE AWAY FREE MONEY TO EVERY SINGLE PERSON THEN MONEY LOSES ITS VALUE ENTIRELY!

Do you not see this?! Money only has whatever value people place on it! If everybody has it, then it is worthless toilet paper! This is worse than what Robert Mugabe is trying to implement!

I am steaming at the ears right now. I cannot believe that there are people who could even begin to conceive of the vague notion that this would ever be a good idea. It does not make sense.

Any.

Sense.

Whatsoever!

[Sibirsky]

To those stating that an economy is either free or it isn't, that's just plain silly. There are degrees of freedom. No question about that.

As far as the OP, bad idea. Impossible to achieve. Money does not grow on trees. And if it did (or the gov't printed enough of it), inflation would wipe out any value of it.

[Treznor]

Holy crap. This is perhaps the most ridiculous idea I have ever heard. The very essence of it goes against every law of economics in existance.

IF YOU GIVE AWAY FREE MONEY TO EVERY SINGLE PERSON THEN MONEY LOSES ITS VALUE ENTIRELY!

Do you not see this?! Money only has whatever value people place on it! If everybody has it, then it is worthless toilet paper! This is worse than what Robert Mugabe is trying to implement!

I am steaming at the ears right now. I cannot believe that there are people who could even begin to conceive of the vague notion that this would ever be a good idea. It does not make sense.

Any.

Sense.

Whatsoever!

Yes. If money has no value, then people stop using it and start focusing on other things.

It's not a perfect concept. There would need to be something to fill the vacuum, and that hasn't been adequately explored yet. But it is an intriguing concept for those of us who aren't quite so enamored of the capitalist game.

[Sibirsky]

Holy crap. This is perhaps the most ridiculous idea I have ever heard. The very essence of it goes against every law of economics in existance.

IF YOU GIVE AWAY FREE MONEY TO EVERY SINGLE PERSON THEN MONEY LOSES ITS VALUE ENTIRELY!

Do you not see this?! Money only has whatever value people place on it! If everybody has it, then it is worthless toilet paper! This is worse than what Robert Mugabe is trying to implement!

I am steaming at the ears right now. I cannot believe that there are people who could even begin to conceive of the vague notion that this would ever be a good idea. It does not make sense.

Any.

Sense.

Whatsoever!

Toilet paper has value. With all the ink and other crap on the currency I would advise you not to use it as toilet paper. That being said, toilet paper would probably be worth trillions if this ridiculous program was implemented. And quit downing on Mugabe. After all, Obama is following in his footsteps.

[Ngelmish]

1. You are simple minded if you really think you need to be an expert in order to care for your self. Building up your own retirement fond is extremely easy and does not take more than 2 hours of deep planning.

As it is today, people in many countries are forced to pay into a public retirement fund, even if they were smart enough to care for themselves. How is this preferable?

2. I can't wait to see you deniers bleeding out of your mouth, when Keynesianism fails once again. I hope you will eventually stop with those bullshit accusations that it's all the fault of those evil Austrian School economists (who actually foresaw the crisis as early as 2004-2005). Repeat: It is not the fault of the free market, because there exists no free market! Neither in Europe, nor the US!

1. Thank you for your humble assessment of my mental faculties. I'll note you completely missed the point, but I am somehow not surprised.

2. I'm still waiting for you Free Market cultists to acknowledge the failure of free market policies over the last thirty years. All I'm seeing is the frantic movement of goalposts. Good thing I'm not holding my breath.

2. Again. We did not have free market policies over the last 30 years. Stop blaming private individuals and start blaming the FEDs and stupid politicians such as Gordon Brown and George W.

Sure we didn't. And sadly, if you repeat it enough somebody might believe it.

Oh dear!

If the US were a free market economy, why would they have the FED and the S.E.C?

An economy is either free or it is not! Mostly free is an oxymoron.

So in other words you should agree that there has never been such a thing as a free market. Circumstances have always existed, and in their existence constrain everything from perfect 'freedom' without said existence.

So where the hell do you get this 'free' market fairy anyway?

[Sibirsky]

Holy crap. This is perhaps the most ridiculous idea I have ever heard. The very essence of it goes against every law of economics in existance.

IF YOU GIVE AWAY FREE MONEY TO EVERY SINGLE PERSON THEN MONEY LOSES ITS VALUE ENTIRELY!

Do you not see this?! Money only has whatever value people place on it! If everybody has it, then it is worthless toilet paper! This is worse than what Robert Mugabe is trying to implement!

I am steaming at the ears right now. I cannot believe that there are people who could even begin to conceive of the vague notion that this would ever be a good idea. It does not make sense.

Any.

Sense.

Whatsoever!

Yes. If money has no value, then people stop using it and start focusing on other things.

It's not a perfect concept. There would need to be something to fill the vacuum, and that hasn't been adequately explored yet. But it is an intriguing concept for those of us who aren't quite so enamored of the capitalist game.

The barter system. With an eventual medium of exchange established. I'll give you my 3 eggs for your sandwich, deal? Damn it Treznor, how about 4 eggs?

Eventually people would settle on some item being "money".

[Treznor]

Holy crap. This is perhaps the most ridiculous idea I have ever heard. The very essence of it goes against every law of economics in existance.

IF YOU GIVE AWAY FREE MONEY TO EVERY SINGLE PERSON THEN MONEY LOSES ITS VALUE ENTIRELY!

Do you not see this?! Money only has whatever value people place on it! If everybody has it, then it is worthless toilet paper! This is worse than what Robert Mugabe is trying to implement!

I am steaming at the ears right now. I cannot believe that there are people who could even begin to conceive of the vague notion that this would ever be a good idea. It does not make sense.

Any.

Sense.

Whatsoever!

Yes. If money has no value, then people stop using it and start focusing on other things.

It's not a perfect concept. There would need to be something to fill the vacuum, and that hasn't been adequately explored yet. But it is an intriguing concept for those of us who aren't quite so enamored of the capitalist game.

The barter system. With an eventual medium of exchange established. I'll give you my 3 eggs for your sandwich, deal? Damn it Treznor, how about 4 eggs?

Eventually people would settle on some item being "money".

In theory, yes. But the barter system would eventually lead to people looking for a standard by which to compare the relative value of items. I think what the OP is shooting for is a means where we stop looking at value and start looking at other motivations. Of course, that could just be me projecting my bias on the topic.

[North Suran]

And quit downing on Mugabe. After all, Obama is following in his footsteps.

Right.

Because everyone remembers when Obama seized white property and divided it up between the black population. And everyone remembers when Obama ordered the Police Force to beat up his political rival during the Presidential campaign. And everyone remembers when Obama ordered bulldozers to destroy the homes of Republicans. And everyone remembers when Obama caused inflation to rise to 6.5 quindecillion novemdecillion percent (65 followed by 107 zeros).

It's ironic, because Mugabe uses Monetarism - an economic theory favoured by free marketers.

[Sibirsky]

And quit downing on Mugabe. After all, Obama is following in his footsteps.

Right.

Because everyone remembers when Obama seized white property and divided it up between the black population. And everyone remembers when Obama ordered the Police Force to beat up his political rival during the Presidential campaign. And everyone remembers when Obama ordered bulldozers to destroy the homes of Republicans. And everyone remembers when Obama caused inflation to rise to 6.5 quindecillion novemdecillion percent (65 followed by 107 zeros).

It's ironic, because Mugabe uses Monetarism - an economic theory favoured by free marketers.

Of course not. But I do hope everyone remembers when Obama and crew promised up to $24 trillion in bailouts. In theory, they should not spend that much. But that amount is 170% of the economy.

[Zeetopolis]

EDIT: I see now that many of my points have already been brought up as I typed. Oh well...

Oh, don't get me wrong. Economic laws go beyond political persuasion. Countries that try to set prices are learning this even as we speak, such as Zimbabwe.

People, people, people... the value of money is not inherent. It is whatever one person is willing to give for something else. If 5 dollars buys you a gallon of water in one country and only a liter in another, then regardless of what the bill says, the money is worth more in the first country.

If trillions of dollars are printed and thrown at everybody and everybody has it, then suddenly, quadrillions will be needed for making everyday purchases.

Robert Mugabe is standing defiant of this as we speak. Oh boy, let's all live in Zimbabwe!

This would genuinely plunge the world into chaos. All the money ever earned beforehand would be meaningless, since now the printers are shooting off thousands of notes for everyone, and inflation would skyrocket. No, more like enter a tachyon gate into heaven.

This is not about my economic philosophy. This is delusional. This is utterly psychotic. I would think that anybody with any knowledge of economics would notice this.

Supply and demand, people. If supply is infinite and demand is no longer necessary, then the value of the item in question is worthless. And to do that to a money system, you are asking us to go back to bartering, once things finally calm down and what's left of the world regains sanity.

[Zeetopolis]

In theory, yes. But the barter system would eventually lead to people looking for a standard by which to compare the relative value of items. I think what the OP is shooting for is a means where we stop looking at value and start looking at other motivations. Of course, that could just be me projecting my bias on the topic.

Value, Treznor? Should we stop looking at value? Go on. Make this claim. I dare you.

[Sibirsky]

Holy crap. This is perhaps the most ridiculous idea I have ever heard. The very essence of it goes against every law of economics in existance.

IF YOU GIVE AWAY FREE MONEY TO EVERY SINGLE PERSON THEN MONEY LOSES ITS VALUE ENTIRELY!

Do you not see this?! Money only has whatever value people place on it! If everybody has it, then it is worthless toilet paper! This is worse than what Robert Mugabe is trying to implement!

I am steaming at the ears right now. I cannot believe that there are people who could even begin to conceive of the vague notion that this would ever be a good idea. It does not make sense.

Any.

Sense.

Whatsoever!

Yes. If money has no value, then people stop using it and start focusing on other things.

It's not a perfect concept. There would need to be something to fill the vacuum, and that hasn't been adequately explored yet. But it is an intriguing concept for those of us who aren't quite so enamored of the capitalist game.

The barter system. With an eventual medium of exchange established. I'll give you my 3 eggs for your sandwich, deal? Damn it Treznor, how about 4 eggs?

Eventually people would settle on some item being "money".

In theory, yes. But the barter system would eventually lead to people looking for a standard by which to compare the relative value of items. I think what the OP is shooting for is a means where we stop looking at value and start looking at other motivations. Of course, that could just be me projecting my bias on the topic.

I did mention that. The very last line. Curious things were used as money previously.

In some regions trade was carried on with bricks of tea and cocoa beans, whereas in Europe livestock, mostly cattle, was the currency. Other items used as legal tender were palm oil, cola nuts, dried fish, tobacco and grains like rice, barley and corn.

Many German and Austrian cities owe their names to the wide reaching salt trade routes.

Schwaebisch Hall, Halle, Hallstadt,
the old German word for Salt was used as a currency in other regions as well: In the 13th century in Tibet, in the 19th century in Ethiopia, Burma and Borneo. A stamp guaranteed weight and quality.

The words opium money leads one to think that opium was also used as

a currency. This isn't true. Opium money were bronze weights in the form of ducks, lions, elephants and other animals that were used in the 17th to 19th century in the opium trade. These weights weighed from 4 gramms to 4 kilos. As soon as the opium trade became illegal the weights were then often used as money.

[Self--Esteem]

To those stating that an economy is either free or it isn't, that's just plain silly. There are degrees of freedom. No question about that.

As far as the OP, bad idea. Impossible to achieve. Money does not grow on trees. And if it did (or the gov't printed enough of it), inflation would wipe out any value of it.

How so?

You are either free or are not. Do you believe you are free to do whatever you want, even if I held a pistol to your neck and told you a list of things you are "free'" to do?

[North Suran]

To those stating that an economy is either free or it isn't, that's just plain silly. There are degrees of freedom. No question about that.

As far as the OP, bad idea. Impossible to achieve. Money does not grow on trees. And if it did (or the gov't printed enough of it), inflation would wipe out any value of it.

How so?

You are either free or are not. Do you believe you are free to do whatever you want, even if I held a pistol to your neck and told you a list of things you are "free'" to do?

As in most cases, black-and-white "You're either X or Y" claims are totally false.

For instance, by your logic, a country can only either be an anarchic state or a totalitarian dictatorship. There is no middle ground, apparantly.

[North Suran]

And quit downing on Mugabe. After all, Obama is following in his footsteps.

Right.

Because everyone remembers when Obama seized white property and divided it up between the black population. And everyone remembers when Obama ordered the Police Force to beat up his political rival during the Presidential campaign. And everyone remembers when Obama ordered bulldozers to destroy the homes of Republicans. And everyone remembers when Obama caused inflation to rise to 6.5 quindecillion novemdecillion percent (65 followed by 107 zeros).

It's ironic, because Mugabe uses Monetarism - an economic theory favoured by free marketers.

Of course not. But I do hope everyone remembers when Obama and crew promised up to $24 trillion in bailouts. In theory, they should not spend that much. But that amount is 170% of the economy.

When US citizens start using $50'000'000 bills in lieu of toilet paper, the comparison will be apt.

[Self--Esteem]

And quit downing on Mugabe. After all, Obama is following in his footsteps.

Right.

Because everyone remembers when Obama seized white property and divided it up between the black population. And everyone remembers when Obama ordered the Police Force to beat up his political rival during the Presidential campaign. And everyone remembers when Obama ordered bulldozers to destroy the homes of Republicans. And everyone remembers when Obama caused inflation to rise to 6.5 quindecillion novemdecillion percent (65 followed by 107 zeros).

It's ironic, because Mugabe uses Monetarism - an economic theory favoured by free marketers.

Errm. NO!

There is a reason only those from the Chicago School are called Monetarists. And there is a reason many Austrian philosophers compared them to Keynesians, who also believe in the monetary theory.

[North Suran]

And quit downing on Mugabe. After all, Obama is following in his footsteps.

Right.

Because everyone remembers when Obama seized white property and divided it up between the black population. And everyone remembers when Obama ordered the Police Force to beat up his political rival during the Presidential campaign. And everyone remembers when Obama ordered bulldozers to destroy the homes of Republicans. And everyone remembers when Obama caused inflation to rise to 6.5 quindecillion novemdecillion percent (65 followed by 107 zeros).

It's ironic, because Mugabe uses Monetarism - an economic theory favoured by free marketers.

Errm. NO!

There is a reason only those from the Chicago School are called Monetarists. And there is a reason many Austrian philosophers compared them to Keynesians, who also believe in the monetary theory.

Sounds an awful lot like a "No true Scotsman" fallacy, to me.

[Self--Esteem]

To those stating that an economy is either free or it isn't, that's just plain silly. There are degrees of freedom. No question about that.

As far as the OP, bad idea. Impossible to achieve. Money does not grow on trees. And if it did (or the gov't printed enough of it), inflation would wipe out any value of it.

How so?

You are either free or are not. Do you believe you are free to do whatever you want, even if I held a pistol to your neck and told you a list of things you are "free'" to do?

As in most cases, black-and-white "You're either X or Y" claims are totally false.

For instance, by your logic, a country can only either be an anarchic state or a totalitarian dictatorship. There is no middle ground, apparantly.

Because you claim they are false?

Just as a government either acts in the full interest of the people or only in it's own interest, are people either free or not.
I thought you left leaners would understand that. You coined the term "wage slave", after all -- even though it is far from actual slavery.

[Self--Esteem]

And quit downing on Mugabe. After all, Obama is following in his footsteps.

Right.

Because everyone remembers when Obama seized white property and divided it up between the black population. And everyone remembers when Obama ordered the Police Force to beat up his political rival during the Presidential campaign. And everyone remembers when Obama ordered bulldozers to destroy the homes of Republicans. And everyone remembers when Obama caused inflation to rise to 6.5 quindecillion novemdecillion percent (65 followed by 107 zeros).

It's ironic, because Mugabe uses Monetarism - an economic theory favoured by free marketers.

Errm. NO!

There is a reason only those from the Chicago School are called Monetarists. And there is a reason many Austrian philosophers compared them to Keynesians, who also believe in the monetary theory.

Sounds an awful lot like a "No true Scotsman" fallacy, to me.

Can you actually argue instead of citing the whole internet vocabulary?

[North Suran]

And quit downing on Mugabe. After all, Obama is following in his footsteps.

Right.

Because everyone remembers when Obama seized white property and divided it up between the black population. And everyone remembers when Obama ordered the Police Force to beat up his political rival during the Presidential campaign. And everyone remembers when Obama ordered bulldozers to destroy the homes of Republicans. And everyone remembers when Obama caused inflation to rise to 6.5 quindecillion novemdecillion percent (65 followed by 107 zeros).

It's ironic, because Mugabe uses Monetarism - an economic theory favoured by free marketers.

Errm. NO!

There is a reason only those from the Chicago School are called Monetarists. And there is a reason many Austrian philosophers compared them to Keynesians, who also believe in the monetary theory.

Sounds an awful lot like a "No true Scotsman" fallacy, to me.

Can you actually argue instead of citing the whole internet vocabulary?

You claim that Monetarism isn't favoured by free marketers just because those free marketers belong to a different school of economics to you, and therefore apparantly 'don't count'. Hence, no true Scotsman.

[Self--Esteem]

1. You are simple minded if you really think you need to be an expert in order to care for your self. Building up your own retirement fond is extremely easy and does not take more than 2 hours of deep planning.

As it is today, people in many countries are forced to pay into a public retirement fund, even if they were smart enough to care for themselves. How is this preferable?

2. I can't wait to see you deniers bleeding out of your mouth, when Keynesianism fails once again. I hope you will eventually stop with those bullshit accusations that it's all the fault of those evil Austrian School economists (who actually foresaw the crisis as early as 2004-2005). Repeat: It is not the fault of the free market, because there exists no free market! Neither in Europe, nor the US!

1. Thank you for your humble assessment of my mental faculties. I'll note you completely missed the point, but I am somehow not surprised.

2. I'm still waiting for you Free Market cultists to acknowledge the failure of free market policies over the last thirty years. All I'm seeing is the frantic movement of goalposts. Good thing I'm not holding my breath.

2. Again. We did not have free market policies over the last 30 years. Stop blaming private individuals and start blaming the FEDs and stupid politicians such as Gordon Brown and George W.

Sure we didn't. And sadly, if you repeat it enough somebody might believe it.

Oh dear!

If the US were a free market economy, why would they have the FED and the S.E.C?

An economy is either free or it is not! Mostly free is an oxymoron.

So in other words you should agree that there has never been such a thing as a free market. Circumstances have always existed, and in their existence constrain everything from perfect 'freedom' without said existence.

So where the hell do you get this 'free' market fairy anyway?

There have been relatively free markets in the mid 19th century and some smaller free markets in medieval Europe.

Claiming that today's America is a free market is a fallacy.

[Treznor]

In theory, yes. But the barter system would eventually lead to people looking for a standard by which to compare the relative value of items. I think what the OP is shooting for is a means where we stop looking at value and start looking at other motivations. Of course, that could just be me projecting my bias on the topic.

Value, Treznor? Should we stop looking at value? Go on. Make this claim. I dare you.

Okay. I think we should identify things other than material value as motivations for why people do things. Eventually we might even get to the point where material value becomes meaningless.

While I'm dreaming, I'd also like a pony. I'm hungry.

[North Suran]

To those stating that an economy is either free or it isn't, that's just plain silly. There are degrees of freedom. No question about that.

As far as the OP, bad idea. Impossible to achieve. Money does not grow on trees. And if it did (or the gov't printed enough of it), inflation would wipe out any value of it.

How so?

You are either free or are not. Do you believe you are free to do whatever you want, even if I held a pistol to your neck and told you a list of things you are "free'" to do?

As in most cases, black-and-white "You're either X or Y" claims are totally false.

For instance, by your logic, a country can only either be an anarchic state or a totalitarian dictatorship. There is no middle ground, apparantly.

Because you claim they are false?

Just as a government either acts in the full interest of the people or only in it's own interest, are people either free or not.

Would you claim that people in the USA aren't free? After all, they are not allowed to kill people, nor are they allowed to run around nude in public. Would you claim that they are slaves?

No. They are free to do as they please, while the government may intervene to defend the public interest e.g prosecuting a murderer or prosecuting a nudist.

The same goes for a mixed economy.

[Self--Esteem]

And quit downing on Mugabe. After all, Obama is following in his footsteps.

Right.

Because everyone remembers when Obama seized white property and divided it up between the black population. And everyone remembers when Obama ordered the Police Force to beat up his political rival during the Presidential campaign. And everyone remembers when Obama ordered bulldozers to destroy the homes of Republicans. And everyone remembers when Obama caused inflation to rise to 6.5 quindecillion novemdecillion percent (65 followed by 107 zeros).

It's ironic, because Mugabe uses Monetarism - an economic theory favoured by free marketers.

Errm. NO!

There is a reason only those from the Chicago School are called Monetarists. And there is a reason many Austrian philosophers compared them to Keynesians, who also believe in the monetary theory.

Sounds an awful lot like a "No true Scotsman" fallacy, to me.

Can you actually argue instead of citing the whole internet vocabulary?

You claim that Monetarism isn't favoured by free marketers just because those free marketers belong to a different school of economics to you, and therefore apparantly 'don't count'. Hence, no true Scotsman.

No. I claim that Monetarism and Laissez-Faire are mutually opposed to each other. Monetarism favours government run instances such as the FED. With a FED (government run monopoly), there is no free market.

[Self--Esteem]

To those stating that an economy is either free or it isn't, that's just plain silly. There are degrees of freedom. No question about that.

As far as the OP, bad idea. Impossible to achieve. Money does not grow on trees. And if it did (or the gov't printed enough of it), inflation would wipe out any value of it.

How so?

You are either free or are not. Do you believe you are free to do whatever you want, even if I held a pistol to your neck and told you a list of things you are "free'" to do?

As in most cases, black-and-white "You're either X or Y" claims are totally false.

For instance, by your logic, a country can only either be an anarchic state or a totalitarian dictatorship. There is no middle ground, apparantly.

Because you claim they are false?

Just as a government either acts in the full interest of the people or only in it's own interest, are people either free or not.

Would you claim that people in the USA aren't free? After all, they are not allowed to kill people, nor are they allowed to run around nude in public. Would you claim that they are slaves?

No. They are free to do as they please, while the government may intervene to defend the public interest e.g prosecuting a murderer or prosecuting a nudist.

The same goes for a mixed economy.

Weak comparison.

Society rules do not inflict freedom. You are free to own property, free to do whatever you want (as long as it is within the rules), free to choose.

There is a slight difference between morality and oppressed freedom.