Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

India floats the idea of a universal basic income

economist.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

161–170 of 252 posts

Re: India floats the idea of a universal basic income

#161

Post by a_t48 »

tluyben2 wrote: post #69
NeutronBoy wrote: post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> What made me change my mind about UBI was to realize that a) human desires are infinite, and there'll always be more work to be done and b) the more work is done by machines, the richer the population as a whole will be, as products and services automated tend to be cheaper. I agree with this sentiment. Looking into the (very long term) future, it's interesting to look at a fictional post-scarcity society (Star Tre…

You work, in that case, but not for money. There might be a lot of work but a lot of that work might be not something anyone wants to pay for. Hell, things we do want, like nurses and teachers we already do not pay enough for, let alone all kinds of niche things. A lot of people who do not have to work still work, and while not many of that kind of worker pops up on HN, many millionaires I know do work in their or ot…

> A lot of people who do not have to work still work, and while not many of that kind of worker pops up on HN

I'd say you're more likely to find that kind of worker here than most other forums on the net.

Re: India floats the idea of a universal basic income

#162

Post by TheArcane »

lngnmn wrote: post #155

India is very special, traditionalist society. As person who have spent a considerable time living in North India, I would say that people will turn this free money into gold and garments and other status symbols, like mobiles, which in turn, will cause inflation and soaring of prices of gold and other assets. The analogy could be a land in the great plains of US. In San Francisco or New York the value and the price…

> a third of population in some areas have no bank account.

That was probably true before demonetisation.

Re: India floats the idea of a universal basic income

#163

Post by aninhumer »

aminok wrote: post #159
aninhumer wrote: post #157

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>You'd prefer people being thrown in prison for refusing to surrender their private property rights Yes, I'd prefer people be thrown in prison for refusing to feed the starving, rather than people starving to death. I think property rights are valuable in-as-far as they improve overall utility, but insisting on enforcing them to the point where it could cause people serious harm is clearly beyond that point. We can a…

>Yes, I'd prefer people be thrown in prison for refusing to feed the starving, rather than them starving to death. So I guess you won't complain when some self-righteous modern-day Robin Hood engages in armed robbery against you to feed children in an orphanage in Africa. And if you resist? Well, the consequences fall on you. Who are you to deny others who are in need your income. That actions that are unconscionable…

>So I guess you won't complain when some self-righteous modern-day Robin Hood engages in armed robbery against you to feed children in an orphanage in Africa.

An ad-hoc process controlled by an individual? Of course I'd complain.

A world-spanning democratic process? Well, it's hard to know if I would truly be willing to give up the standard of living that I'm used to, but in principle I would happy to do so if it would lift the entire world out of relative poverty.

>That actions that are unconscionable by any normal moral standard suddenly become socially acceptable to endorse when done through the political process shows how detached political ideology has become from humanity/morality.

Actions on behalf of a democratic system are different to actions of an individual, because they have the consent of a majority of the governed.

How do you intend that property rights be enforced? Who decides who owns what, and what gives them the right to make that decision? Would it be acceptable for an individual who disagrees (i.e. doesn't consent) to take action on their own to reallocate property as they see fit?

Re: India floats the idea of a universal basic income

#164

Post by aminok »

aninhumer wrote: post #163
aminok wrote: post #159

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>Yes, I'd prefer people be thrown in prison for refusing to feed the starving, rather than them starving to death. So I guess you won't complain when some self-righteous modern-day Robin Hood engages in armed robbery against you to feed children in an orphanage in Africa. And if you resist? Well, the consequences fall on you. Who are you to deny others who are in need your income. That actions that are unconscionable…

>So I guess you won't complain when some self-righteous modern-day Robin Hood engages in armed robbery against you to feed children in an orphanage in Africa. An ad-hoc process controlled by an individual? Of course I'd complain. A world-spanning democratic process? Well, it's hard to know if I would truly be willing to give up the standard of living that I'm used to, but in principle I would happy to do so if it wou…

>An ad-hoc process controlled by an individual? Of course I'd complain.

Morally there's no difference. You just want the armed robbery to be done in a more organized and deliberative process. That doesn't change the moral quality of threatening you with violence to deprive you of your property, when you have not committed any offence to warrant such a violation of your rights.

>Actions on behalf of a democratic system are different to actions of an individual, because they have the consent of a majority of the governed.

Violating people's rights with the "consent of the majority" is just two wolves and a sheep voting on whats for dinner. The justification is just an ideological cover for violating others rights.

>How do you intend that property rights be enforced? Who decides who owns what, and what gives them the right to make that decision?

Property rights would ideally be enforced by the government, with common law, which is based on protecting people's human rights (including the right to not be robbed to provide for the poor), determining who owns what.

>Would it be acceptable for an individual who disagrees (i.e. doesn't consent) to take action on their own to reallocate property as they see fit?

I don't know, because there are many factors to consider. If the judgment is unjust, but resisting it with force leads to far more violence against the innocent, then it could wrong to resist in such a manner. The best course of action in my opinion is to strongly argue for what one believes is justice as long as the freedom of speech exists.

Re: India floats the idea of a universal basic income

#165

Post by aninhumer »

aminok wrote: post #164
aninhumer wrote: post #163

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>So I guess you won't complain when some self-righteous modern-day Robin Hood engages in armed robbery against you to feed children in an orphanage in Africa. An ad-hoc process controlled by an individual? Of course I'd complain. A world-spanning democratic process? Well, it's hard to know if I would truly be willing to give up the standard of living that I'm used to, but in principle I would happy to do so if it wou…

>An ad-hoc process controlled by an individual? Of course I'd complain. Morally there's no difference. You just want the armed robbery to be done in a more organized and deliberative process. That doesn't change the moral quality of threatening you with violence to deprive you of your property, when you have not committed any offence to warrant such a violation of your rights. >Actions on behalf of a democratic syste…

>Property rights would ideally be enforced by the government, with common law, which is based on protecting people's human rights ..., determining who owns what.

And how exactly do they determine that? What happens when people disagree about ownership? What makes the government's decisions more valid than the individuals'?

>If the judgment is unjust, but resisting it with force leads to far more violence against the innocent, then it could wrong to resist in such a manner.

So it's okay to ignore property rights if enforcing them would cause harm?

>The best course of action in my opinion is to strongly argue for what one believes is justice as long as the freedom of speech exists.

And what will this achieve? What mechanism is there for government to recognise and rectify its mistake?

>is just two wolves and a sheep voting on whats for dinner.

As opposed to two wolves agreeing that they own the grass, and enforcing that until the sheep dies. Power imbalances will always enable abuse, but democracy at least ensures that the power imbalance benefits more people than it harms.

Re: India floats the idea of a universal basic income

#167

Post by balladeer »

lngnmn wrote: post #155

India is very special, traditionalist society. As person who have spent a considerable time living in North India, I would say that people will turn this free money into gold and garments and other status symbols, like mobiles, which in turn, will cause inflation and soaring of prices of gold and other assets. The analogy could be a land in the great plains of US. In San Francisco or New York the value and the price…

> in India there is a free food available in many big temples, but for some reasons lots of people prefer to eat at home

Okay, it needs some clarification :-)

The free meal is supposed to be for people who need it but can't afford it but not supposed to be on a regular basis - for the destitute and people in general who find it difficult to buy a meal. But they (called "langars" at Gurudwaras, run by the Sikh community) never turn anyone away (regardless of faith or background or anything). Never! Some other temples and even some mosques do that, but it's not at all "all are welcome" like langars. So not the temples. So purpose isn't to be the meal provider even though they wouldn't return anyone.

So those langars aren't meant for eating in general for people. Also, people are not often alone. There are families with them and it would be very hard to conceive eating at those temples with entire families.

> In India people do not run after money per se, but for social status, which is a cornerstone of the Indian culture.

That is not entirely true. Like any other place people of course go for status and respect but saying that Indians don't go for money is missing the point. As a matter of fact money is a driving factor here. Especially for the people for whom this plan might be aimed at - the people below the fringe. There's a term here "BPL" - below poverty line. And trust me when I say it "Poverty Line" is estimated so generously that it is a shame even from a developing country standards. Otherwise a lot more people would have fallen below poverty line here.

You are spot on about rampant corruption which is uniformly present at every level - bottom to top. But remember that starts right at the top or bottom - depending at how you want to look at it.

Govt is aiming at giving the people bank accounts too and hope it catches up and succeeds.

Re: India floats the idea of a universal basic income

#168

Post by aembleton »

ozy wrote: post #151

My vote goes to redistribution of wealth, by means of a progressive tax that starts negative. It is the human thing to do. But it also aligns with economics and politics. Redistribution: because more money at the bottom, means a larger overall market, and I think a more stable economy. Progressive tax: any paying work will always improve your situation. (So people stay motivated to work.) Taxing wealth creation (and…

A negative tax subsidises employers so that they don't have to pay so much. If everyone got the money whether they worked or not then the low wage employer would need to improve the incentive to go and work for them. It would also reduce the amount of administrative work required.

Re: India floats the idea of a universal basic income

#169

Post by vacri »

aminok wrote: post #158
vacri wrote: post #156

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> (by vibrant, I mean fast-developing) Nice, you take a word I introduced to the conversation, explicitly redefined it in a way I wasn't using it, and then proceed to demand I prove your new definition. Why should I bother, if you're just going to change the way I was using a word and then tell me I'm sheeple? And since you like statistics so much, population growth, a foundational element in economic growth, also st…

>Why should I bother, if you're just going to change the way I was using a word and then tell me I'm sheeple? It doesn't really matter how you define it. What matters is that they have not improved much from the position they were at when they adopted social democracy, and the reason is because their rate of economic growth has stagnated. The way to measure the success of a policy is to see how much a country has imp…

> Gee why would anyone base their views on large-scale phenomena on statistical evidence!? Why don't I just base my ideas on what's culturally popular and which notions give me warming feelings!?

'number of humans' is a statistical measure, not a huggy feeling, you dolt. You are the living definition of selection bias. And for proof:

> There's absolutely no evidence that the source's raison d'etre is to promote the free market.

https://iea.org.uk/about-us - they explicitly say it themselves.

Stop calling other people amateurs and bubble-dwellers; you're in no fit state to make such accusations.

Re: India floats the idea of a universal basic income

#170

Post by kalleboo »

ploxiln wrote: post #103
bitJericho wrote: post #92

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Ubi should never be about owning anything. It should be about providing housing, food, healthcare, clothes, and nothing more. It should be for all citizens, including children. This way you can have a family. But if you want a tv, phone, car, you're going to have to work. Since people are living to their 70s plus, lounging around isn't a big deal. I think you'll find people become very creative too, or focus on high…

Adding children is pushing it - because the parent controls the child's money, so there is a conflict of interest.

Child benefits already exist in many places https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Child_benefit
Post reply on HN