Universal Welfare: yea or nay?

[North Suran]

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.

Margaret Thatcher was a Monetarist. Would you claim that she wasn't a firm believer in the Free Market?

[North Suran]

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.

Hence, a free market. That is all a mixed economy is; a free market system with State oversight.

[Alcanso]

nay, no, nein

[Lootie]

Fantastic Idea!

[Self--Esteem]

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.

Margaret Thatcher was a Monetarist. Would you claim that she wasn't a firm believer in the Free Market?

Firm believer, yes (indeed most monetarists are). But I believe that her monetarist views were flawed and that it could never have led to a fully free market.

[Glorious Homeland]

So you're basically saying, 100% tax rate, but equal distribution of that taxed wealth? It won't work in the sense that you need to pay some jobs more than others, given risk, skills required or government/social need to encourage people to full fill undesirable or difficult careers. Whatever, and you'd be destroying the entire capitalist system.

I would love a Star Trekesque Federation, where money isn't an issue and people simply have rations for use producing complicated pieces of equipment with energy-matter replication, as food and clothing are free for all... but humanity needs two major conditions met before we can consider this.

#1 Income inequality needs to be of a good standard globally. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_co ... inequality
This means that capitalism and democracy need to work to a point where every country in the world is, almost or better than the likes of Denmark, Japan or Sweden are now.

#2 Government needs to be transparent to a point where the distribution of funds are almost guaranteed to be without corruption. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Press_Freedom_Index So all nations again need to be like, better than or roughly equal to Denmark or Finland. We can also use the democracy index to dissern similar results. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democracy_index

Until we achieve both those conditions, the proposal is at best ineffective, and at worst self-destructive.

[North Suran]

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.

Margaret Thatcher was a Monetarist. Would you claim that she wasn't a firm believer in the Free Market?

Firm believer, yes (indeed most monetarists are). But I believe that her monetarist views were flawed and that it could never have led to a fully free market.

Thus is my point. Just because she had different ideas on how a Free Market could be achieved doesn't make her any less of a free marketer. Hence my comment that Monetarism is favoured by free marketers, and my subsequent comment about the "No true Scotsman" fallacy.

[Self--Esteem]

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.

Hence, a free market. That is all a mixed economy is; a free market system with State oversight.

No. That is overly simplifying things. A mixed economy is not a free market with State oversight. The policies are mutually different.
And it's rather funny that people who scolded me for saying that the Soviet Union and the GDR were Communist and that Communism is the sucessor of Socialism are now claiming that A = C or Free Market = Mixed Market.

[Self--Esteem]

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.

Margaret Thatcher was a Monetarist. Would you claim that she wasn't a firm believer in the Free Market?

Firm believer, yes (indeed most monetarists are). But I believe that her monetarist views were flawed and that it could never have led to a fully free market.

Thus is my point. Just because she had different ideas on how a Free Market could be achieved doesn't make her any less of a free marketer. Hence my comment that Monetarism is favoured by free marketers, and my subsequent comment about the "No true Scotsman" fallacy.

I used another definition of Free Marketer. Because there is more to it than believing in it. In order to be a free market adovcate, your concept should fully work towards this goal, without compromises.

[North Suran]

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.

Hence, a free market. That is all a mixed economy is; a free market system with State oversight.

No. That is overly simplifying things.

Is this not somewhat hypocritical, considering you just asserted that a market is either free or it is not?

A mixed economy is not a free market with State oversight. The policies are mutually different.

Not at all. Everything that makes up a free market is here: Free enterprise, private control of the factors of production, unrestricted markets, private firms, etc etc.

The only difference is that, when the private firms inevitably mess up, the State is there to (thanklessly) bail them out. Similarly, the State regulates the market to defend the interests of the population and prevent imperfect competition.

[North Suran]

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.

Margaret Thatcher was a Monetarist. Would you claim that she wasn't a firm believer in the Free Market?

Firm believer, yes (indeed most monetarists are). But I believe that her monetarist views were flawed and that it could never have led to a fully free market.

Thus is my point. Just because she had different ideas on how a Free Market could be achieved doesn't make her any less of a free marketer. Hence my comment that Monetarism is favoured by free marketers, and my subsequent comment about the "No true Scotsman" fallacy.

I used another definition of Free Marketer. Because there is more to it than believing in it. In order to be a free market adovcate, your concept should fully work towards this goal, without compromises.

Hence, no true Scotsman.

[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.

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.

Don't eat the pony!

Oh, MATERIAL value? That's certainly far, far less sweeping than value by itself.

But anyway, if something is worth a lot of material value, then it is because many people want it and it is in very limited supply. But value is not determined by a price tag that is arbitrarily set by a government (which is an error that I see all the time with price controls). Certainly, a government's price controls impact value. If something of high market value is marked down for lower than it would be in a free market, then it will be snapped up by the demand.

But if the producer of a good cannot make a good enough return off of the product he is producing, he will stop producing. And then the black market price for the good will skyrocket due to the limited supply of the good.

So now the only way to attain the good is illegally through the black market (hence utterly unavailable to law-abiders), where it is more expensive (to those who realize the laws are stupid anyway) and there is no regulation of any sort whatsoever (so bye-bye your precious consumer protection laws).

So I'm not sure that eliminating material value is a good thing, in that it would make things less available to everybody. And yes, I am banking on greed. I don't pretend that we can send everybody to re-education and have them come out refusing to be the first ones at the drinking fountain. I'm being realistic. Sorry, but you can't have your pony unless you pay for it.

[Self--Esteem]

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.

Hence, a free market. That is all a mixed economy is; a free market system with State oversight.

No. That is overly simplifying things.

Is this not somewhat hypocritical, considering you just asserted that a market is either free or it is not?

A mixed economy is not a free market with State oversight. The policies are mutually different.

Not at all. Everything that makes up a free market is here: Free enterprise, private control of the factors of production, unrestricted markets, private firms, etc etc.

The only difference is that, when the private firms inevitably mess up, the State is there to (thanklessly) bail them out. Similarly, the State regulates the market to defend the interests of the population and prevent imperfect competition.

You seem to miss important matters of a free market. A free market consists of free banking, private welfare, the utter lack of bail outs, etc. etc.

[Self--Esteem]

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.

Margaret Thatcher was a Monetarist. Would you claim that she wasn't a firm believer in the Free Market?

Firm believer, yes (indeed most monetarists are). But I believe that her monetarist views were flawed and that it could never have led to a fully free market.

Thus is my point. Just because she had different ideas on how a Free Market could be achieved doesn't make her any less of a free marketer. Hence my comment that Monetarism is favoured by free marketers, and my subsequent comment about the "No true Scotsman" fallacy.

I used another definition of Free Marketer. Because there is more to it than believing in it. In order to be a free market adovcate, your concept should fully work towards this goal, without compromises.

Hence, no true Scotsman.

Whatever.

All I am saying is that it is incompatible with a free market.

It's like those companies demanding the government to stay out of their business, only to change this stance whenever they fail.

[North Suran]

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.

Margaret Thatcher was a Monetarist. Would you claim that she wasn't a firm believer in the Free Market?

Firm believer, yes (indeed most monetarists are). But I believe that her monetarist views were flawed and that it could never have led to a fully free market.

Thus is my point. Just because she had different ideas on how a Free Market could be achieved doesn't make her any less of a free marketer. Hence my comment that Monetarism is favoured by free marketers, and my subsequent comment about the "No true Scotsman" fallacy.

I used another definition of Free Marketer. Because there is more to it than believing in it. In order to be a free market adovcate, your concept should fully work towards this goal, without compromises.

Hence, no true Scotsman.

Whatever.

All I am saying is that it is incompatible with a free market.

In your view. That doesn't make it any less of a Free Market view. After all, I'm sure Anarcho-Communists claim that Authoritiarian Communists are incompatible with Communism.

[Self--Esteem]

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.

Margaret Thatcher was a Monetarist. Would you claim that she wasn't a firm believer in the Free Market?

Firm believer, yes (indeed most monetarists are). But I believe that her monetarist views were flawed and that it could never have led to a fully free market.

Thus is my point. Just because she had different ideas on how a Free Market could be achieved doesn't make her any less of a free marketer. Hence my comment that Monetarism is favoured by free marketers, and my subsequent comment about the "No true Scotsman" fallacy.

I used another definition of Free Marketer. Because there is more to it than believing in it. In order to be a free market adovcate, your concept should fully work towards this goal, without compromises.

Hence, no true Scotsman.

Whatever.

All I am saying is that it is incompatible with a free market.

In your view. That doesn't make it any less of a Free Market view. After all, I'm sure Anarcho-Communists claim that Authoritiarian Communists are incompatible with Communism.

I don't know why they wouldn't. Neither does enclude any or all sorts of statism.

A free market excludes statism, however. Thus neither a mixed economy nor hard-core monetary policies could be entirely compatible with a free market.

[The Black Plains]

Really really really incredibly stupid idea.

1:it will not have the desired effect. You cannot possibly predict where people will spend their money. The very poor and the upper class to very rich are very very very unpredictable in the way that they spend money, and there's the upwards of forty percent of your world population right there.

2: It will not have the desired effect in that liquid currency is not balanced. It is not stable, it is static from place to place. In New York, twenty bucks can buy you a meal. In Chico, Mexico, twenty dollars could get you a three star hotel room for three nights. In Paris you could afford a cup of coffee and a taxi ride. In the Zambudu village, Nigeria, the twenty dollars would be completely worthless!

3: You would have to tax literally around 113% of the world's GDP (which is impossible for a plethora of reasons).

4: It would take months alone to distribute all of that money, which means you would have to start in advance, which would mean you would need at least five times the amount that you actually distribute. So you're looking at about 500% of the world's GDP having to be in the tubes at any given time if you want people to get two hundred dollars on a weekly goddamn basis.

5: At the end of the week, no matter how much alleged "market" has been built by your misguided redistribution of 113% of the world's GDP, you have two hundred dollars. Because in order to pay for it they have to take ALL of your money. Literally all of it. We're talking one hundred (thirteen) percent tax to reach your quota to supply this stupid welfare ONCE. Why in God's name would anybody work if they made over 200$ a week? Your plan is just impossible.

6: I will now address the moral reasons as to why it is bad. If you are a trillionaire, there is a reason for that. If you haven't a penny to your name, there's a reason for that too. Plain and simple.

[North Suran]

Thus is my point. Just because she had different ideas on how a Free Market could be achieved doesn't make her any less of a free marketer. Hence my comment that Monetarism is favoured by free marketers, and my subsequent comment about the "No true Scotsman" fallacy.

I used another definition of Free Marketer. Because there is more to it than believing in it. In order to be a free market adovcate, your concept should fully work towards this goal, without compromises.

Hence, no true Scotsman.

Whatever.

All I am saying is that it is incompatible with a free market.

In your view. That doesn't make it any less of a Free Market view. After all, I'm sure Anarcho-Communists claim that Authoritiarian Communists are incompatible with Communism.

I don't know why they wouldn't. Neither does enclude any or all sorts of statism.

A free market excludes statism, however. Thus neither a mixed economy nor hard-core monetary policies could be entirely compatible with a free market.

That's like saying the UK isn't democratic because it doesn't hold a referendum for every Bill.

[Natapoc]

Really really really incredibly stupid idea.

1:it will not have the desired effect. You cannot possibly predict where people will spend their money. The very poor and the upper class to very rich are very very very unpredictable in the way that they spend money, and there's the upwards of forty percent of your world population right there.

2: It will not have the desired effect in that liquid currency is not balanced. It is not stable, it is static from place to place. In New York, twenty bucks can buy you a meal. In Chico, Mexico, twenty dollars could get you a three star hotel room for three nights. In Paris you could afford a cup of coffee and a taxi ride. In the Zambudu village, Nigeria, the twenty dollars would be completely worthless!

3: You would have to tax literally around 113% of the world's GDP (which is impossible for a plethora of reasons).

4: It would take months alone to distribute all of that money, which means you would have to start in advance, which would mean you would need at least five times the amount that you actually distribute. So you're looking at about 500% of the world's GDP having to be in the tubes at any given time if you want people to get two hundred dollars on a weekly goddamn basis.

5: At the end of the week, no matter how much alleged "market" has been built by your misguided redistribution of 113% of the world's GDP, you have two hundred dollars. Because in order to pay for it they have to take ALL of your money. Literally all of it. We're talking one hundred (thirteen) percent tax to reach your quota to supply this stupid welfare ONCE. Why in God's name would anybody work if they made over 200$ a week? Your plan is just impossible.

6: I will now address the moral reasons as to why it is bad. If you are a trillionaire, there is a reason for that. If you haven't a penny to your name, there's a reason for that too. Plain and simple.

Did you make up your numbers here or did you do some calculation to find them? Especially the 113% of the worlds GDP number vs 500% of the worlds GDP in advance. I'm curious how you did that calculation.

[Maurepas]

It's a good idea in the sense that it has a good intention, but, it's impossible to implement, or at least, impossible to get the desired result, and therefore a bad idea...

Because if everyone from newborns onward are simply given the same amount, it simply changes the default amount, it doesn't change the wealth distribution at all, just changes the placement of zero, your prices will simply change to accommodate the new money base of the poor and rich classes..

Changing the placement of zero doesn't matter much to the rich.

It's the difference between starving and surviving, for the poorest of the world.

Yeah, I know that's the point, but, I'm not sure it will actually work that way...

For example, let's say the guaranteed income was $5, well, because everybody has $5 by default, $5 is now equal to $0 in value, therefore, just because everybody gets five dollars to make it to zero, they still have zero value when they get there, and can't purchase anything on this income alone...

[Self--Esteem]

Thus is my point. Just because she had different ideas on how a Free Market could be achieved doesn't make her any less of a free marketer. Hence my comment that Monetarism is favoured by free marketers, and my subsequent comment about the "No true Scotsman" fallacy.

I used another definition of Free Marketer. Because there is more to it than believing in it. In order to be a free market adovcate, your concept should fully work towards this goal, without compromises.

Hence, no true Scotsman.

Whatever.

All I am saying is that it is incompatible with a free market.

In your view. That doesn't make it any less of a Free Market view. After all, I'm sure Anarcho-Communists claim that Authoritiarian Communists are incompatible with Communism.

I don't know why they wouldn't. Neither does enclude any or all sorts of statism.

A free market excludes statism, however. Thus neither a mixed economy nor hard-core monetary policies could be entirely compatible with a free market.

That's like saying the UK isn't democratic because it doesn't hold a referendum for every Bill.

We better stop here.

My head is going to explode if we go on with those out of world comparisons.
Besides, it's not even the topic of this thread.

[Nobel Hobos]

It's a good idea in the sense that it has a good intention, but, it's impossible to implement, or at least, impossible to get the desired result, and therefore a bad idea...

Because if everyone from newborns onward are simply given the same amount, it simply changes the default amount, it doesn't change the wealth distribution at all, just changes the placement of zero, your prices will simply change to accommodate the new money base of the poor and rich classes..

Changing the placement of zero doesn't matter much to the rich.

It's the difference between starving and surviving, for the poorest of the world.

Yeah, I know that's the point, but, I'm not sure it will actually work that way...

For example, let's say the guaranteed income was $5, well, because everybody has $5 by default, $5 is now equal to $0 in value, therefore, just because everybody gets five dollars to make it to zero, they still have zero value when they get there, and can't purchase anything on this income alone...

Wow, you have a very strange view of money. It's not just a way to rank people against each other!

There is an inflationary effect to distributing money as I propose. The poorest people will spend it immediately, increasing the rate of flow of money (liquidity? some such term) and that would be inflationary. Another effect (which may be related or even identical) is that if you give more money to a class of people who all want the same thing (eg food) you increase the market for the same amount of supply, prices will rise ie inflation.

But $5 still buys something. Local inflation in economies where that amount of money is A LOT (weak local currency) might cut the value of that payment to a tiny fraction of what it was when the money started being distributed (and for this reason I am giving some consideration to Natapoc's idea of adjusting the payment to local purchasing power).

Inflation won't, and can't, ever reduce the value of $5 to zero. I don't know what you're angling at there.

Six pages here, and I think a lot of it I have to reply to. But there's something to be going on with ...

[Maurepas]

It's a good idea in the sense that it has a good intention, but, it's impossible to implement, or at least, impossible to get the desired result, and therefore a bad idea...

Because if everyone from newborns onward are simply given the same amount, it simply changes the default amount, it doesn't change the wealth distribution at all, just changes the placement of zero, your prices will simply change to accommodate the new money base of the poor and rich classes..

Changing the placement of zero doesn't matter much to the rich.

It's the difference between starving and surviving, for the poorest of the world.

Yeah, I know that's the point, but, I'm not sure it will actually work that way...

For example, let's say the guaranteed income was $5, well, because everybody has $5 by default, $5 is now equal to $0 in value, therefore, just because everybody gets five dollars to make it to zero, they still have zero value when they get there, and can't purchase anything on this income alone...

Wow, you have a very strange view of money. It's not just a way to rank people against each other!

There is an inflationary effect to distributing money as I propose. The poorest people will spend it immediately, increasing the rate of flow of money (liquidity? some such term) and that would be inflationary. Another effect (which may be related or even identical) is that if you give more money to a class of people who all want the same thing (eg food) you increase the market for the same amount of supply, prices will rise ie inflation.

But $5 still buys something. Local inflation in economies where that amount of money is A LOT (weak local currency) might cut the value of that payment to a tiny fraction of what it was when the money started being distributed (and for this reason I am giving some consideration to Natapoc's idea of adjusting the payment to local purchasing power).

Inflation won't, and can't, ever reduce the value of $5 to zero. I don't know what you're angling at there.

Six pages here, and I think a lot of it I have to reply to. But there's something to be going on with ...

What do you mean, money has some other purpose? Lies, Lies and Slander!

I was only applying it to the United States, where $5 is pretty much $5 anywhere, local inflation I haven't seen takes much effect...I guess the key here is, are you just printing out this income, or are you taking it out through taxes, or whatever? I assumed since it was guaranteed to all people, even those in the Upper Class, that it wouldn't be taxed out of them...

[Nobel Hobos]

Its a horrible idea. Especially the thought of shoe prices going up.

Women would be heading straight for our throats.

But really. It's a 0 - 0 situation.

What difference does it make if you give a beggar 100 euros of which he can buy necessities for one week or 500 euros with prices going through the roof so that he might end up paying 500 euros for the same shopping basket?

I see you're still arguing on page 8. I'm sorry I wasn't here (should have posted in the morning not late at night).

I did mention ameliorating poverty (specifically starvation and undernourishment) as a desirable affect of my plan, but a lot of posters have lept on that as if I said that was the purpose of the plan. I really didn't mean that. It's true that inflation would reduce the buying power of the handout (growing the market, with supply lagging behind, of course it would) and its also true that increasing the payment to try to keep the same purchasing power would just drive inflation higher. Absolute runaway process, train-wreck.

It's my feeling that in poor countries the payment cannot be enough "to buy necessities for the week". I think that's a level which would harm not help grassroots economies. It might get supermarkets on street corners, but a whole lot of the produce would have to be imported, rather defeating the purpose. Yes, that would employ truck drivers and shelf-stackers, but I'm aiming for a lot more than that. I'm aiming at building a working and self-perpetuating economy in places with distorted and/or weak economies, and as such the payment has to be subtle, a strengthening component in the existing economy rather than a magic bullet. There would still be need of infrastructure investment, of education and health programs, policing ... all the things which developing nations do anyway to the extent they could afford it.

And yes, it is socialist. But here's the magic of it: it's also individualist. I'm talking about building economies from the grass-roots up, by empowering people to invest in tools, to import what they personally choose for their business, not just take whatever an international charity thinks is what they need. This is in stark contrast from how we actually help out struggling nations, by giving their governments money for specific purposes. That isn't working well, and it will work even less well in the future as we repeat the lesson "if you squander the money so badly you can never pay it back, we'll forgive your debt" ... loans worked better than gifts, but the motivating effect (obligation to pay it back) is pretty much blown by the numerous precedents of the loan being retrospectively made into a gift.

It's my feeling that good government is only really possible with a working economy. Trying to fix economies by giving money to their bad governments just isn't going to work. Nor is it fair to give money only to governments which spend it well: it's not the fault of the people that they have a bad government which is corrupt or has wrong ideas of what is good investment. Give the money directly to the people!

---

some general remarks about the thread

---

I see that goading the minarchists with a shockingly high figure ($200 each) was not as clever as it seemed to me last night. I just wanted to get some discussion going, and negotiate with the people who don't immediately take a pro or anti stance, about what would be a safe (non-economy-wrecking) and practical (affordable) level of universal welfare. If I'd just come right out with what I think is a reasonable level (about $1 - $5 a week) there would be a lot more posters just saying "why not?" without considering it too deeply. It's still a lot of money in total, and I admit that the benefits (humanitarian and economic) would take a long time to come through. It's intended to help, not fix systemic inequality.

Note however, that my plan does not rely on world government. Nor on a single world currency. It's actually somewhat like the roadmap for Europe: begin with economic integration (similar fiscal policies, similar banking regulation) before currency unification, and currency unification before federalizing government. It's intended to be practical with the international regime we've already got. Distributing the money would be a huge challenge, involving building physical banks, electronic infrastructure, issuing ID cards from birth. It's a lot more doable though, than federalizing the diverse national governments into a world federation (ie, world government).

[Nobel Hobos]

It's a good idea in the sense that it has a good intention, but, it's impossible to implement, or at least, impossible to get the desired result, and therefore a bad idea...

Because if everyone from newborns onward are simply given the same amount, it simply changes the default amount, it doesn't change the wealth distribution at all, just changes the placement of zero, your prices will simply change to accommodate the new money base of the poor and rich classes..

Changing the placement of zero doesn't matter much to the rich.

It's the difference between starving and surviving, for the poorest of the world.

Yeah, I know that's the point, but, I'm not sure it will actually work that way...

For example, let's say the guaranteed income was $5, well, because everybody has $5 by default, $5 is now equal to $0 in value, therefore, just because everybody gets five dollars to make it to zero, they still have zero value when they get there, and can't purchase anything on this income alone...

Wow, you have a very strange view of money. It's not just a way to rank people against each other!

There is an inflationary effect to distributing money as I propose. The poorest people will spend it immediately, increasing the rate of flow of money (liquidity? some such term) and that would be inflationary. Another effect (which may be related or even identical) is that if you give more money to a class of people who all want the same thing (eg food) you increase the market for the same amount of supply, prices will rise ie inflation.

But $5 still buys something. Local inflation in economies where that amount of money is A LOT (weak local currency) might cut the value of that payment to a tiny fraction of what it was when the money started being distributed (and for this reason I am giving some consideration to Natapoc's idea of adjusting the payment to local purchasing power).

Inflation won't, and can't, ever reduce the value of $5 to zero. I don't know what you're angling at there.

Six pages here, and I think a lot of it I have to reply to. But there's something to be going on with ...

What do you mean, money has some other purpose? Lies, Lies and Slander!

I was only applying it to the United States, where $5 is pretty much $5 anywhere, local inflation I haven't seen takes much effect...I guess the key here is, are you just printing out this income, or are you taking it out through taxes, or whatever? I assumed since it was guaranteed to all people, even those in the Upper Class, that it wouldn't be taxed out of them...

1. Even within the United States, $5 is not $5 anywhere. Fresh vegetables in Alaska, or housing in New York ... no, it's not the same everywhere. Only for non-perishable commodities is that even roughly true.

The same currency used throughout a country tends to equalize prices, that is true (if you can buy it cheap somewhere and sell it dear somewhere else without having to cross a border or exchange currency, someone will do that, driving up the price in the buying place and driving down the price in the selling place). A world currency would have that effect too, but you see I'm not proposing that.

2. I'd consider either or both. As I see it, a world economy where everyone has a job, and where those jobs are as productive as they are in developed nations (due to mechanization and efficient markets) is a richer world overall. Who pays? The rich of course. You can't do income redistribution without taking a disproportionate amount from the rich.

Printing money is inflationary, everyone knows that. But actually, the financial markets do pretty much print money. They invent things which are traded just like money, and increase in value from being traded.

In a sense, taking money in taxes, or printing money, take money from the same people. Those who have money. If you have a million dollars in the bank, and the government doubles the amount of dollars in circulation by printing a huge quantity, your million dollars will only buy half what it did before. You have been taxed.