Capitalism Has Gone Off the Rails • Hacker News Board

Re: Capitalism Has Gone Off the Rails

#291

Post by zanny » Mon, Nov 03, 2014, 9:53 PM UTC

qwtel wrote: post #154

zanny wrote: post #77

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> We have no successful model for dealing with this. Canada seems to have had pretty good success with that basic income town. And no major western democracy has really attempted it yet. I like it because it lets you have a completely deregulated economy, because both employer and employee would be participating in voluntary negotiation without a huge bias towards the employer - when one side is starving and need she…

I like the idea of basic income, but I'm skeptical about how many problems it can actually solve. Your depiction almost makes it sound miraculous (with a bit of social romanticism), while ignoring the problems it could eventually create. Apart form that we are a long way from having a serious discussion about it, as it's just too alien a concept for most people, including those who would need it.

Considering everyone beyond the retirement age is already effectively getting a basic income, or that anyone on unemployment is getting a temporary basic income, or that if you ignore the beuracratic overhead and injustice of welfare then food stamps + section 9 + the free electric programs sum to a near basic income, albeit a much worse implementation in every way, that is hugely destructive for economies and persons involved.

People already love getting those income tax returns - when you pay in more than you needed to, and you get the difference back. Basic income is the exact same thing - most people would be paying in significantly less than they get out, while those above a threshold (preferably the peak happiness threshold of income, that varies by location but in general on an individual basis is around 75k a year, src: http://content.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,2019628...).

Re: Capitalism Has Gone Off the Rails

#292

Post by msandford » Mon, Nov 03, 2014, 9:59 PM UTC

JoeAltmaier wrote: post #289

msandford wrote: post #288

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Your question is really confused. The top 1% hold a lot of wealth but not all that much purchasing power. Everyone else has relatively speaking a lot of purchasing power even if the wealth is less. In other words, there is one guy with $1mm in the bank and 99 people that make $50k per year. Which is more important to you if you make and sell stuff? The guy with $1mm in the bank could theoretically buy $1mm worth of y…

Not about purchasing power. About the value of money. That's not gonna change by fooling with 1% of the availability. The reason so many are unemployed, after all, is that it takes fewer people to sustain a given 'standard of living', right? So now, with our free market, those unemployed drop into poverty since their bank account of imaginary points goes to zero. Put points back into those bank accounts, and what hap…

> Not about purchasing power. About the value of money.

The value of money is directly derived from its purchasing power. If you can't buy anything with money, it's worthless.

The point is that the vast majority of the money in the US is in flow, not tied up in the rich 1% bank accounts.

So if 95% of people suddenly have 2x cashflow (on average, let's say) then prices should roughly double within a fairly short period of time. We won't suddenly have more gasoline or milk or beef or whatever if everyone has twice as much money every month. So more money chases the same amount of goods and prices rise. This is really simple economics.

Would doubling the price of everything erode the purchasing power of the rich too? Yeah, absolutely. At least for all the money that they have tied up in cash. But considering that the FDIC only insures you up to $250k I suspect that most wealthy people are going to have their money in assets like stocks, bonds, and real estate. Real estate prices will definitely rise and I suspect that the other asset classes will go up in price too.

There might be a period of a few weeks to a couple of years where people actually do get more stuff before the prices start to rise. But with how just-in-timed everyone's supply chains are these days it's not as though it would take 20 years for everyone to catch up to what's happened.

Re: Capitalism Has Gone Off the Rails

#293

Post by dragonwriter » Mon, Nov 03, 2014, 10:01 PM UTC

zanny wrote: post #291

qwtel wrote: post #154

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I like the idea of basic income, but I'm skeptical about how many problems it can actually solve. Your depiction almost makes it sound miraculous (with a bit of social romanticism), while ignoring the problems it could eventually create. Apart form that we are a long way from having a serious discussion about it, as it's just too alien a concept for most people, including those who would need it.

Considering everyone beyond the retirement age is already effectively getting a basic income, or that anyone on unemployment is getting a temporary basic income, or that if you ignore the beuracratic overhead and injustice of welfare then food stamps + section 9 + the free electric programs sum to a near basic income, albeit a much worse implementation in every way, that is hugely destructive for economies and person…

> Considering everyone beyond the retirement age is already effectively getting a basic income

No, they aren't. Presumably, this is intended to refer to Social Security, which is not at all like a basic income (even aside from age):

1) Eligibility to receive benefits at all isn't unconditional (again, even discounting age), its based on qualifying contributions -- your own or someone else's -- and other factors.

2) The level of benefits if you are eligible isn't constant, but varies based on the same factors that go into eligibility.

> or that anyone on unemployment is getting a temporary basic income

Unemployment insurance is also not like basic income, as the benefit level as controlled by qualifying income in the preceding period.

> or that if you ignore the beuracratic overhead and injustice of welfare then food stamps + section 9 + the free electric programs sum to a near basic income

You probably mean section 8 housing vouchers, but, again, nothing like a basic income; all of those are conditional program with both means and behavioral tests (and in many cases aren't fungible benefits, so they also have use restrictions).

Re: Capitalism Has Gone Off the Rails

#294

Post by msandford » Mon, Nov 03, 2014, 11:18 PM UTC

Zigurd wrote: post #230

msandford wrote: post #221

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I want to write a really sarcastic comment, but that won't really achieve anything. I suspect that either I really don't get something, or that you really don't get something but I can't tell which. You said "That's actually an argument for basic income" in response to my statement "if everyone stops working and starts taking basic income" which I don't understand. I thought I laid out a fairly clear argument that if…

> I thought I laid out a fairly clear argument that if everyone stopped working everything falls apart. Or the price of labor goes up. In a system where money buys the legislature, your only real recourse is to say "Fuck it, I'm out." Basic income would enable labor to vote by withholding labor. That's a feature, not a bug.

Okay, that's an interesting take on the matter. I think in a world where money buys the legislature you'd end up with basic income repealed (or not passed in the first place) and as a result, it doesn't serve the intended function.

That's actually why I'm really in love with mayday.us; Lawrence Lessig's PAC to get money out of politics by supporting people who want to do actual reform rather than just saying that want to. If we can actually vote the bastards out and get better people who won't be bought in, we've got a chance to shake things up and maybe fix some of the underlying problems that basic income seems like a solution to.

I maintain that everyone could stop working and prices could rise enough such that basic income is a joke and everyone has to work again in order to eat, which kind of defeats the purpose of basic income.

But I do appreciate your response.

Re: Capitalism Has Gone Off the Rails

#295

Post by seanflyon » Tue, Nov 04, 2014, 12:53 AM UTC

JoeAltmaier wrote: post #279

msandford wrote: post #278

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> First, only the people making up to the amount of the basic income would be willing to quit their jobs- anyone making more than needed to survive would certainly continue wanting to maximize their earnings You've made two assumptions here: 1. People are ENTIRELY rational (they're not) 2. No black market exists If you could guarantee that those conditions could be met, I would be much more willing to engage in the r…

Are US salaries anything near a big part of the economy? I thought the 99% controlled most of the money. Its unlikely that fiddling around with salaries (even minting money to pay a basic income) will affect the value of money, if we're only talking about 1% (or less) of the money.

According to some quick Googling

"wealthiest 1 percent of Americans control 35.6 percent of the total wealth of the country"

"the top 1 percent of income earners took home 17.67 percent of the total income"

http://money.howstuffworks.com/one-percent-control-third-of-...

Re: Capitalism Has Gone Off the Rails

#296

Post by msandford » Tue, Nov 04, 2014, 1:32 AM UTC

seanflyon wrote: post #295

JoeAltmaier wrote: post #279

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Are US salaries anything near a big part of the economy? I thought the 99% controlled most of the money. Its unlikely that fiddling around with salaries (even minting money to pay a basic income) will affect the value of money, if we're only talking about 1% (or less) of the money.

According to some quick Googling "wealthiest 1 percent of Americans control 35.6 percent of the total wealth of the country" "the top 1 percent of income earners took home 17.67 percent of the total income" http://money.howstuffworks.com/one-percent-control-third-of-...

Okay, but what is the overlap between those two groups? Are the top 1% of income earners exactly the same people as the wealthiest top 1%?

Re: Capitalism Has Gone Off the Rails

#297

Post by stefantalpalaru » Tue, Nov 04, 2014, 3:32 AM UTC

dionidium wrote: post #251

randomsearch wrote: post #249

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> But I never feared missing a meal. That's not the experience of most poor folks in the U.S. I'm not an expert on the U.S. However, I have seen people digging through trash for food in Atlanta. I have also seen the extreme state of homelessness in Philadelphia, and the problems in San Francisco. It is certainly true that many people in the UK struggle to afford food [1], and given that the US has a much greater disp…

Yes, I've seen them, too. And there's a risk here that it will sound like I'm moving the goal posts around so that I'm right by definition. But that's not what I'm trying to do. There are of course those at the bottom who are chronically homeless. Those are the folks I was referring to in my first paragraph. Yes, you will see them digging in dumpsters. But this is not the typical experience. Most poor people never en…

> Most poor people never end up homeless

The times they are a-changin': http://www.rollingstone.com/culture/news/the-sharp-sudden-de...

Re: Capitalism Has Gone Off the Rails

#298

Post by zanny » Tue, Nov 04, 2014, 8:02 AM UTC

dragonwriter wrote: post #293

zanny wrote: post #291

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Considering everyone beyond the retirement age is already effectively getting a basic income, or that anyone on unemployment is getting a temporary basic income, or that if you ignore the beuracratic overhead and injustice of welfare then food stamps + section 9 + the free electric programs sum to a near basic income, albeit a much worse implementation in every way, that is hugely destructive for economies and person…

> Considering everyone beyond the retirement age is already effectively getting a basic income No, they aren't. Presumably, this is intended to refer to Social Security, which is not at all like a basic income (even aside from age): 1) Eligibility to receive benefits at all isn't unconditional (again, even discounting age), its based on qualifying contributions -- your own or someone else's -- and other factors. 2) T…

There is a reason we usually prefix BI with universal. No, there are few programs that are legitimately universal, but every instance of non-universality you describe just describes a bureaucratic overhead nightmare that severely cripples any potential efficiency of a public works project.

The jump is not from anarchy to UBI. It is from conditional basic income to unconditional.

Also, I might be mixing up my district nines and section eights. I wonder why...

Re: Capitalism Has Gone Off the Rails

#299

Post by bildung » Tue, Nov 04, 2014, 8:30 AM UTC

maratd wrote: post #187

bildung wrote: post #86

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Hong Kong and Singapore are the two freest economies. They have very minimal welfare states, with relatively light regulation and taxation. Their wealth creation and economic growth have been astounding over the last ten years. Hong Kong and Singapore had an astounding growth of 2.9% and 3.9%, while socialist China had a miserable 7.7%? I don't get the impression you looked at the numbers at all, or did you?

In what way is China socialist? It's a kleptocracy and an aggressively capitalist one at that.

Whether or not China is socialist or capitalist doesn't really matter: GP said "freer" economies have higher growth. Is China freer than Hong Kong or Singapore?

(BTW: China sure has a market economy, but OTOH it lacks multiple specifics of contemporary Western capitalist economies, e.g. it's not primarily driven by the financial markets, a significant portion of the workforce still works at state owned enterprises, much deeper planned macro economical development than in the West, ...)

Re: Capitalism Has Gone Off the Rails

#300

Post by antimagic » Tue, Nov 04, 2014, 10:00 AM UTC

ende wrote: post #114

antimagic wrote: post #78

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Interestingly enough, the US Constitution's much-abused 2nd amendment was targetted at precisely this problem - the founders were at least aware of the problem. It's still too early to know if this is a sufficient safeguard. But things must be getting close - those Occupy Wall Street protests only needed to have a few hotter heads leading things, and we may have seen impromptu armies numbering in the thousands taking…

Yes and no. While it's true that a purpose of the second amendment was to preserve the right to armed revolt, another purpose, articulated in the Federalist Papers, was to share (distribute and balance) the state's natural monopoly on the use of force with the people. However, I had more in mind an ideological revolution transcending the tired left-right paradigm. In this matter, the right sees a centralized concentr…

I was actually thinking of the Federalist Papers justification when I wrote my comment ;) We're not talking about the people overthrowing the government, but rather reclaiming a share of the wealth which they can't get any other way, because the wealthy always ended up capturing the permanent power structures. It's worth noting that even with wealth these days being virtual (there are no massive vaults filled with gold in company HQs), there is still a physical aspect to accessing that wealth - someone that physically takes over the corporate headquarters of Walmart has access to systems that can distribute the wealth. Of course if you're just a bunch of bandits that does this, the government will pursue you to reclaim the money. But if you do it as part of a political movement with wide community support, politicians are much more likely to let it lie.

I think the 2nd Amendment is a "meta" amendment. It's a recognition that power tends to concentrate, and that to stop this some chaos needs to be maintained in the system.