The indignity of no work • Hacker News Board

Re: The indignity of no work

#221

Post by 1stop » Mon, Feb 24, 2014, 3:05 AM UTC

e1g wrote: post #44

1stop wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There is ~$45 trillion in the world[0] There is ~7 billion people. That gives ~$6500/person. That seems reasonable. Given if you distributed all money evenly worldwide the profit motive would disappear and things would be bought and sold at cost. But yes, I've gone waaay into sci-fi. But, back in the real world, Australia basically has one. So you're full of shit.[1] [0] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gross_world_produ…

An Australian here - there is absolutely no universal basic income in Australia. We have a nurturing social safety net and it provides some minimal payments for those who are experiencing hardship. These payments are temporary and a meant to help individuals survive while they get up on their feet again. The selection criteria is quite forgiving because the system is setup to err on the side of overpayments rather th…

I think you misunderstand australian system. It is identical to a universal basic income, but it has been built with efficiency in mind (much like ALL of Australia's welfare systems).

A basic income of ~$10k/year is provided to everyone (who needs it, i.e the unemployed). Depending on what kind of other needs (rent, children, school, etc) other benefits are available as well. It is not temporary, and you can live on it for your whole life if 10k/year is enough for you.

It was designed EXACTLY to be like a universal basic income, it has only (in the last 15 years) been eroded to a "temporary unemployment" scheme in peoples minds.

So you may be an Australian, but you seem to lack the knowledge of your own welfare system.

Tell me, if it isn't a universal basic income, then who is not 'eligible' for it? (Excluding people who already earn more than the basic income of course).

Re: The indignity of no work

#222

Post by yetanotherphd » Mon, Feb 24, 2014, 3:24 AM UTC

erichocean wrote: post #220

yetanotherphd wrote: post #202

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Since M0 is about 3.7 trillion, printing 7.5 trillion in cash would cause inflation of about 200% per year. This would have obviously bad effects, causing people to great lengths to avoid holding cash. I think income or sales tax is the only way to distribute large amounts of money from the rich to the poor.

Not all inflationary pressure is equal (i.e. it's not true that printing X dollars leads to Y% inflation—the kind of dollars X represents matters a great deal). In part, my scheme wouldn't cause hyperinflation for much the same reasons that fractional-reserve lending doesn't cause hyperinflation, even though it also increases the money supply (drastically, too). It matters a great deal how the money is put to use, an…

I chose M0 because you are talking about creating hard money, which is what M0 measures. When you create 7.5 Trillion in hard money, you increase M0 by 200%. My very rough estimate is that this will create 200% inflation, because M0 is the base through which all other kinds of currency derive their value (hence the name "monetary base").

Reserve banking doesn't cause inflation in itself as long as the reserve ratio is fixed, because a given percentage increase in M0 will result in a similar percentage increase in bank reserves (M1). So it is really down to M0, which is also the quantity that the reserve bank manipulates through its open market operations in order to execute monetary policy.

>I'll also point out that M2, not M0, is traditionally what is used to forecast inflation.

That is not relevant. Forecasting inflation under the current policy regime is a completely different matter from forecasting the inflation that your proposal would cause.

Re: The indignity of no work

#223

Post by smm2000 » Mon, Feb 24, 2014, 3:33 AM UTC

dualogy wrote: post #115

pekk wrote: post #110

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not really, since there was no historical time when USD were being printed with wild abandon

Partly true, but we're also talking hypothetical here, as in "why don't we just print the basic income" -- "bread would get pricier" -- "in a normal national currency, yes very quickly, but in a global reserve currency, with substantial delay". Interesting: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Triffin_dilemma

The price of break can start going up even before money is printed. World reserve currency status is due to the fact that historically US Dollar was a very safe and reliable storage of wealth. As soon as talks of printing more money start circulating, people outside of US will start selling USD and buying EUR/Chinese Yuan/Bitcoins/local currency. Due to that, US Dollar exhchange rate can collapse and price of bread will definitely go up.

There is some flexibility - trust in USD is still very strong and US can print quite a bit before negative cycle kicks in but it defintely could not print as much as needed to make everyone rich.

Re: The indignity of no work

#224

Post by erichocean » Mon, Feb 24, 2014, 4:03 AM UTC

yetanotherphd wrote: post #222

erichocean wrote: post #220

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not all inflationary pressure is equal (i.e. it's not true that printing X dollars leads to Y% inflation—the kind of dollars X represents matters a great deal). In part, my scheme wouldn't cause hyperinflation for much the same reasons that fractional-reserve lending doesn't cause hyperinflation, even though it also increases the money supply (drastically, too). It matters a great deal how the money is put to use, an…

I chose M0 because you are talking about creating hard money, which is what M0 measures. When you create 7.5 Trillion in hard money, you increase M0 by 200%. My very rough estimate is that this will create 200% inflation, because M0 is the base through which all other kinds of currency derive their value (hence the name "monetary base"). Reserve banking doesn't cause inflation in itself as long as the reserve ratio i…

My proposal would not be run under the current policy regime, and you're absolutely right: trying to forecast inflation from (part of) my proposal using M0 from the current policy regime isn't relevant. I'm not even clear why we're discussing it at all.

Re: The indignity of no work

#225

Post by yetanotherphd » Mon, Feb 24, 2014, 4:08 AM UTC

erichocean wrote: post #224

yetanotherphd wrote: post #222

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I chose M0 because you are talking about creating hard money, which is what M0 measures. When you create 7.5 Trillion in hard money, you increase M0 by 200%. My very rough estimate is that this will create 200% inflation, because M0 is the base through which all other kinds of currency derive their value (hence the name "monetary base"). Reserve banking doesn't cause inflation in itself as long as the reserve ratio i…

My proposal would not be run under the current policy regime, and you're absolutely right: trying to forecast inflation from (part of) my proposal using M0 from the current policy regime isn't relevant. I'm not even clear why we're discussing it at all.

The theoretical and empirical relationship between changes in the money base (M0) and inflation are well established, and based on very simple intuition: changing the amount of hard money by a factor of 3, results in a change in the value of money by a factor of 1/3. I can't educate you on macroeconomics in this thread, please refer to any macro textbook.

Re: The indignity of no work

#226

Post by whatevsbro » Mon, Feb 24, 2014, 6:37 AM UTC

ahomescu1 wrote: post #173

whatevsbro wrote: post #165

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I'm not convinced that it is NOT financially viable. Especially in Switzerland where the governance is exemplary compared to other countries. It's not about the "quality" of your "governance", ie. "how satisfactorily you're enslaved". It's just that all money a government hands out to people has to come from somewhere, and each of the ways of acquiring the money has negative, compounding consequences. > The fact th…

> No one would pay taxes without the threat of violence. If you were just asked nicely: "would you like to support yet another war in the Middle-East with a few thousand dollars?", you'd just decline and go on with your life, and that's exactly why they don't just ask nicely, they force you to pay. I agree with the rest of your points, but not necessarily with this one. Many people do pay taxes voluntarily, because "…

> Many people do pay taxes voluntarily, because "it's their civic duty", and roads and schools and all of that.

If it were genuinely voluntary, they could just stop any time they wanted to, without any negative consequences. We all know they can't - they'll be forcefully hauled into jail, and their property will be confiscated.

Re: The indignity of no work

#227

Post by whatevsbro » Mon, Feb 24, 2014, 6:47 AM UTC

dllthomas wrote: post #207

whatevsbro wrote: post #165

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I'm not convinced that it is NOT financially viable. Especially in Switzerland where the governance is exemplary compared to other countries. It's not about the "quality" of your "governance", ie. "how satisfactorily you're enslaved". It's just that all money a government hands out to people has to come from somewhere, and each of the ways of acquiring the money has negative, compounding consequences. > The fact th…

"True. But if you think about it for a moment, you'll realize it actually meets the criteria for extortion. You're handing over your money under threat of violence, even if the violence is X steps removed from where you are now." If I take your laptop, is it extortion when you demand its return? At some point you may resort to violence (or have someone else do it on your behalf), so, that's extortion right? I would s…

> If I take your laptop, is it extortion when you demand its return?

Oh come on.. :p It's my laptop, my property. But if I tell you I'm going to hurt you if you don't give me your laptop, that is extortion.

> Likewise, we have collectively agreed (through the process of government, with all its flaws) to pay certain amounts in tax in certain situations.

"We" can't collectively agree on anything, because we're all individuals, and we all have the exact same rights as everyone else (which don't include making binding decisions on behalf of complete strangers).

Imagine there are 10 people in a room, and 9 of them decide that each will eat five of the hottest chilis in the world. Does that mean the remaining one has to eat them too, because they have "collectively decided" to eat chilis, or does he have the right not to participate?

Re: The indignity of no work

#228

Post by cardiffspaceman » Mon, Feb 24, 2014, 6:52 AM UTC

Edmond wrote: post #185

smsm42 wrote: post #144

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>>> I doubt too many people are going to stop working because they qualify for ACA subsidies Equivalent of 2.5 million workers is too many or not too many? >>> I see the ACA subsidies as a way to make people more proactive about their health and keep them out of emergency rooms which is significantly more costly to the system. This is also proven not to be true. Having insurance, actually, raises usage of emergency r…

The fact is if you have health insurance you are likely to engage in preventative care activities (eg regular primary care visits) that you would otherwise avoid without insurance, however you look at it, this is a good thing. The fact that people may run to the ER unnecessarily even with insurance is perhaps a reflection of other problems (maybe too many hypochondriacs Googling :)? ), but that isn't a reason to not…

The reason those insured by the government go to ER's is because the regular clinics TURN THEM AWAY. The government program doesn't pay enough to the clinics and doesn't force the clinics to accept the patients. Judging by the 3rd degree my wife got from a dermatologist a few weeks ago, those covered by coveredca.gov are going to be in the same situation.

And by "clinics" I mean all those non-ER businesses that purport to offer treatment to the public for a fee, such as private-practice doctors.

Re: The indignity of no work

#229

Post by ahomescu1 » Mon, Feb 24, 2014, 7:07 AM UTC

whatevsbro wrote: post #226

ahomescu1 wrote: post #173

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> No one would pay taxes without the threat of violence. If you were just asked nicely: "would you like to support yet another war in the Middle-East with a few thousand dollars?", you'd just decline and go on with your life, and that's exactly why they don't just ask nicely, they force you to pay. I agree with the rest of your points, but not necessarily with this one. Many people do pay taxes voluntarily, because "…

> Many people do pay taxes voluntarily, because "it's their civic duty", and roads and schools and all of that. If it were genuinely voluntary, they could just stop any time they wanted to, without any negative consequences. We all know they can't - they'll be forcefully hauled into jail, and their property will be confiscated.

Sure, but my point was that that's not the main reason; they genuinely want to pay for some of the stuff that comes out of taxes (like police, firefighters, public schools and roads). The point is this: if you don't want to stop paying taxes, why does it matter that you can't? (to some people it matters, but to many it doesn't)

Re: The indignity of no work

#230

Post by toomuchtodo » Mon, Feb 24, 2014, 7:20 AM UTC

ahomescu1 wrote: post #177

ansimionescu wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The idea of a basic income is still sci-fi. There just isn't that much money. Sorry, but that last part is utterly dumb. There is enough of everything for everyone, money is just one of the abstractions we built for convenience's sake. Most of these abstractions for power have gone out of hand, but I assure you that there exists a theoretical parallel universe where basic income is implemented at a global scale.

> There is enough of everything for everyone Citation for this fact?

http://www.nrel.gov/gis/re_potential.html

Total estimated energy potential for renewables in the US (wind/solar/biomass/etc) is 481800 TWh. The US used 25,776 Twh of energy in 2010. That's a lot of renewable energy. With that much renewable energy, you can desal all the water you want. You could even replenish aquifers by condensing water out of the air when power is cheap (at night, when the wind is blowing hard).

We have enough land for food production, which is for the most part automated (http://www.epa.gov/oecaagct/ag101/demographics.html ; "There are over 313,000,000 people living in the United States. Of that population, less than 1% claim farming as an occupation (and about 2% actually live on farms). In 2007, only 45% of farmers claimed farming as their principal occupation and a similar number of farmers claiming some other principal occupation. The number of farms in the U.S. stands at about 2.2 million."). As we continue to automate farming, we'll be able to feed more people with less effort. Ergo, there is enough food for everyone.

So, let me run through this:

* Energy * Water * Food * Communications infrastructure

Ahh! Transportation! I missed that. Self-driving electric cars fit the bill. Also, efficient traffic management algorithms ensure our existing roadways can be used at maximum efficiency, thereby removing the need for more roadway.

Did I miss anything?