The benefits of a basic income // much higher min wage

Intended for constructive conversations. Exhibits of polarizing tribalism will be deleted.
Campitor
Posts: 850
Joined: Thu Aug 20, 2015 11:49 am

Re: The benefits of a basic income // much higher min wage

Post by Campitor » Fri Jun 07, 2019 4:25 pm

bigato wrote:
Fri Jun 07, 2019 3:59 pm
Exactly. So do you stand by your argument that the money going to big tech is generating innovation? They are just cementing their position. We are still gathering the fruits from the era where real innovation was acctually happening. The ammount of research made by AT&T Bell Labs is such that we didn't even look at everything they produced. To cite a few, the laser, the transistor and unix, which is at the root of most computers and phone's operating system. What are google, facebook and amazon innovatiing?
You do realize that AT&T Bell Labs was a corporation with large sums of wealth. Aren't you kind of proving the point? And Unix is even better now than before because the pervasiveness of the internet has made open source projects viable. Where would the internet be without the corporations who were willing to outlay large sums of capital to build the infrastructure we currently enjoy? The modems, cables, switches, and hubs were manufactured by corporations. The roads that you drive on and the sidewalks you walk on are made possible by the plethora of tools and machines developed by companies. The plastics, alloys, and wood that surround you are all made by large companies churning them out. Taking forcefully from these companies to pay someone 12k in the hopes that they will improve the quality of life for everyone is pure fantasy. Those who can will find a way, those who can't will not regardless the sums of money you throw at them.
Last edited by Campitor on Fri Jun 07, 2019 4:37 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Campitor
Posts: 850
Joined: Thu Aug 20, 2015 11:49 am

Re: The benefits of a basic income // much higher min wage

Post by Campitor » Fri Jun 07, 2019 4:36 pm

7Wannabe5 wrote:
Fri Jun 07, 2019 12:38 pm
Based on my reading of the biographies of true innovators, such as Claude Shannon, vs those of efficient thugs, such as Rockefeller, it is my strong belief that innovators are only motivated by money to the extent that it allows them to have the free time to continue to innovate.

Also, recent research on the topic of innovation reveals that the two factors shared by individuals with important or multiple patents are high IQ and family money. Therefore, if the goal is to increase innovation, the money would best be distributed to low income or asset individuals with high iqs in order to give them the free time to engage in pure research and development in accordance with their druthers.

I like this plan better, because then I will even maybe be able to afford to buy some more land for my projects .
One of the biggest innovators in my opinion was Tesla - his propensity for innovation was diametrically opposed to his love of money. But none of his inventions would have been possible without the money he received from his wealthy patrons such as Westinghouse. In the end, as he got older and his experiments more ambitious, he lacked the funds to complete or begin his experiments. Innovation requires large sums of money and the ability to execute its introduction into the market which I don't think will suddenly explode with the advent of a 12k UBI scheme that requires taking from those already producing goods and services.

IlliniDave
Posts: 2545
Joined: Wed Apr 02, 2014 7:46 pm

Re: The benefits of a basic income // much higher min wage

Post by IlliniDave » Sat Jun 08, 2019 5:07 am

7Wannabe5 wrote:
Thu Jun 06, 2019 6:32 pm
@IlliniDave:

I am just making the obvious observation that if $12,000/year extra income was enough to convince a young woman to have a baby or another baby, the net lifetime economic activity of that human would be much greater than the economic productivity of any additional share of productive assets Scrooge McDuck would buy with his $12,000. I am not suggesting that it would be the better choice. Obviously, increased economic activity correlates very well with resource depletion and environmental degradation. But, also obviously, it seems unlikely that Scrooge McDuck would be highly motivated to buy X more shares in Costco with his $12,000 if there was no profit to be made in selling bulk lot diapers etc.

Of course, if the goal is to increase economic activity, the very worst sort of person to give $12,000/year to would be somebody like me who would promptly spend it all on more free time to wander about in the morning playing amateur naturalist and then lounge about in the afternoon reading old novels.
Okay, well you are possibly correct if you just isolate the payout, but upstream in the real world a notional Scrooge M would possibly have millions taken from him to fund the program before getting his $12K back. And the question is are those millions millions he would be putting to work, injecting into the economy via voluntary consumption transactions, donating to charities/causes of his choosing, or leaving in his vault of treasure to molder? I sense the assumption behind people who tend to support guys like Yang is the latter, where I think it is the least likely thing a business, corporation, or wealthy individual would do.
Last edited by IlliniDave on Sat Jun 08, 2019 5:12 am, edited 1 time in total.

7Wannabe5
Posts: 5009
Joined: Fri Oct 18, 2013 9:03 am

Re: The benefits of a basic income // much higher min wage

Post by 7Wannabe5 » Sat Jun 08, 2019 5:12 am

@Campitor:
I agree. If increasing innovation is the goal then instead of giving 12k /year to everyone, just give 1.2 million/year to those in the top 1% IQ.

IlliniDave
Posts: 2545
Joined: Wed Apr 02, 2014 7:46 pm

Re: The benefits of a basic income // much higher min wage

Post by IlliniDave » Sat Jun 08, 2019 5:27 am

unemployable wrote:
Thu Jun 06, 2019 11:17 am
That's basically what Trump did. Instead of trying to eliminate every tax break and loophole and fighting every special interest one at a time, the corporate rate was lowered to a level where it is easier/cheaper to just pay that. The reduced incentive to itemize on the personal side was similar, just raise the standard deduction so much that far fewer people itemize.
I knew that was what the intent was, but I wasn't sure the moronic redshirt legislators he was dealing with at the time allowed it to happen (I don't follow corporate tax policy all that closely). On the personal side I am among those who transitioned to taking the standard deduction. Unfortunately it did not simplify my tax prep work because I still did all the calculations. Even taking just the standard deduction my total tax bill as a percent of total income was down slightly.

IlliniDave
Posts: 2545
Joined: Wed Apr 02, 2014 7:46 pm

Re: The benefits of a basic income // much higher min wage

Post by IlliniDave » Sat Jun 08, 2019 6:06 am

7Wannabe5 wrote:
Sat Jun 08, 2019 5:12 am
@Campitor:
I agree. If increasing innovation is the goal then instead of giving 12k /year to everyone, just give 1.2 million/year to those in the top 1% IQ.
Not trying to speak for Campitor, but the cynical side of me thinks the real goal is to recruit political support from people who would like to receive a substantial check every month with nothing asked of them in return other than a trip to the voting booth.

If increasing innovation is the goal (a worthy goal but I would tend to argue it is not one we should force to the top tier of the hierarchy when it comes to government fiscal priorities/policies) I don't know why we would do anything other than try to maintain a reasonably secure and stable society, and reasonably fair playing field, while interfering as little as possible with the natural flow of capital.

UBI's place in the discussion is as an alternate means of providing a social safety net. In it's favor is its relative simplicity, but there's some illogical aspects to it. All the discussions about whether it promotes idleness or promotes industriousness are interesting, but I think are things at the margin. I'm curious if there are any successful examples at the community/nation-level where it's been tried and proven superior, but not so curious I am willing to make an independent research project of it. What I've heard in passing is that at best it's a mixed bag when looking at early results.

Campitor
Posts: 850
Joined: Thu Aug 20, 2015 11:49 am

Re: The benefits of a basic income // much higher min wage

Post by Campitor » Sat Jun 08, 2019 10:00 am

7Wannabe5 wrote:
Sat Jun 08, 2019 5:12 am
@Campitor:
I agree. If increasing innovation is the goal then instead of giving 12k /year to everyone, just give 1.2 million/year to those in the top 1% IQ.
I suspect that those in the top 1% IQ are already doing what they want to do and no amount of capital reallocation will budge them into any innovating endeavours that they are not already doing. And IQ is hardly an indicator that the innovations they are working on are the type that lead to quality of life increases for the masses. Tesla himself found himself penniless in old age because he refused to work on technology that had practical applications and would have netted him money which he could have used to fund his more esoteric experiments. High IQ people are a quirky bunch.

Christopher Langan

Christopher Michael Langan (born March 25, 1952) is an American independent scholar known for his very high IQ, measured at around 195. When Langan was independently tested by 20/20, he broke the ceiling of the test. As a result of his score, he has been described as "the smartest man in America" as well as "the smartest man in the world" by some journalists...

...Langan took a string of labor-intensive jobs for some time, and by his mid-40s had been a construction worker, cowboy, Forest Service Ranger, farmhand, and, for over twenty years, a bouncer on Long Island.

Langan was also approached and contracted by Disney Research and he previously worked for Virtual Logistix, a technology company. Langan said he developed a "double-life strategy": on one side a regular guy, doing his job and exchanging pleasantries, and on the other side coming home to perform equations in his head, working in isolation on his Cognitive-Theoretic Model of the Universe (CTMU)...

...Langan has developed a "theory of the relationship between mind and reality" which he calls the "Cognitive-Theoretic Model of the Universe" (CTMU).
Influenced by the works of John Archibald Wheeler and Stephen Hawking among others, the work's central thesis is that reality is a self-processing, self-referential language, embodying a dual aspect monism and consisting of "infocognition", or information that resides in "syntactic operators" within reality

In 1999, Langan and others formed a non-profit corporation named the Mega Foundation to "create and implement programs that aid in the development of severely gifted individuals and their ideas" (the organization's designation for those with IQs of 164 or above).

Langan told Muscle & Fitness magazine that "you cannot describe the universe completely with any accuracy unless you're willing to admit that it's both physical and mental in nature" and that the CTMU "explains the connection between mind and reality, therefore the presence of cognition and universe in the same phrase". Langan contends that anything sufficiently real to influence reality must be within reality, and that mind and reality are ultimately inseparable to the extent that they share common rules of structure and processing. He calls his proposal "a true 'Theory of Everything', a cross between John Archibald Wheeler's 'Participatory Universe' and Stephen Hawking's 'Imaginary Time' theory of cosmology." In conjunction with his ideas, Langan has claimed: "You can prove the existence of God, the soul and an afterlife, using mathematics."

As far CTMU's critical reception is concerned, the CTMU has been sometimes criticized for what some perceive as convoluted language. Some critics argue that Langan's use of neologisms (or redefined terms) has made his exposition obscure. Some suggest this is deliberate. The theory does define its terms, however, although there is no glossary. The CTMU, being a perpetual work in progress, has been characterized as a so-called supertautology by Mr. Langan.


Chris Langan grooms a horse at his ranch in Missouri.
Asked about creationism, Langan has said:

I believe in the theory of evolution, but I believe as well in the allegorical truth of creation theory. In other words, I believe that evolution, including the principle of natural selection, is one of the tools used by God to create mankind. Mankind is then a participant in the creation of the universe itself, so that we have a closed loop. I believe that there is a level on which science and religious metaphor are mutually compatible.

jacob
Site Admin
Posts: 11229
Joined: Fri Jun 28, 2013 8:38 pm
Location: USA, Zone 5b, Koppen Dfa, Elev. 620ft, Walkscore 73
Contact:

Re: The benefits of a basic income // much higher min wage

Post by jacob » Sat Jun 08, 2019 10:12 am

With such an arrangement, a set of business structures intended to teach people how to pass IQ tests would quickly emergence. It would resemble the present educational system with teachers, coaches, consultants, administrators, etc. except the sole focus would be on making people better at solving IQ puzzles. IOW, it would create the cost of a sorting system being born by those who go for the ultimate price of a "1%"-stipend but fail to get it.

Basically, you'll be creating a large scale Jeopardy competition.

Campitor
Posts: 850
Joined: Thu Aug 20, 2015 11:49 am

Re: The benefits of a basic income // much higher min wage

Post by Campitor » Sat Jun 08, 2019 10:15 am

IlliniDave wrote:
Sat Jun 08, 2019 6:06 am
Not trying to speak for Campitor, but the cynical side of me thinks the real goal is to recruit political support from people who would like to receive a substantial check every month with nothing asked of them in return other than a trip to the voting booth.
I agree wholeheartedly. And I love how eager politicians are in regards to running expensive experiments using the strong arm of the government to reallocate someone else's money.

Yang should put his money where his mouth is. He should find someone who fits his criteria (18yrs + US citizen) randomly and give them 1K a month for a decade to see what happens - perhaps he can start in gun addled Chicago or backwoods Appalachia. If he manages to turn an inner city thug or an appalachian illiterate into a walking talking dynamo of innovation by giving them a 12K yearly stipend with no strings attached (per his proposal), then I'll be open to experimenting with UBI. All UBI experiments I've read about ended with mixed results which I suspect is caused by what is naturally occurring now without UBI in existence: those who can already do...those who can't or won't already don't...

Campitor
Posts: 850
Joined: Thu Aug 20, 2015 11:49 am

Re: The benefits of a basic income // much higher min wage

Post by Campitor » Sat Jun 08, 2019 10:29 am

jacob wrote:
Sat Jun 08, 2019 10:12 am
Basically, you'll be creating a large scale Jeopardy competition.
Throw in some random MMA matches or Ninja Warrior competitions and you could probably mass market it into a cable tv show. If you became the host, my viewership would be 100% guaranteed. :lol:

bigato
Posts: 2118
Joined: Sat Mar 05, 2011 12:43 pm

Re: The benefits of a basic income // much higher min wage

Post by bigato » Sat Jun 08, 2019 2:38 pm

Yeah, if geniuses of the class of Tesla were not able to come with a way to sustain themselves, why would we as a society shoulder the burden? If they can't sustain themselves, it's obvious that they won't contribute much of useful back to society. Also, obviously by putting their money where their mouth is with a sample size of 1, the politician would certainly not be able to show any result thus disproving the idea completely. Also corporations are the source of innovation not people.

Campitor
Posts: 850
Joined: Thu Aug 20, 2015 11:49 am

Re: The benefits of a basic income // much higher min wage

Post by Campitor » Sat Jun 08, 2019 5:09 pm

  1. Tesla refused to work on practical innovations as he aged despite Westinghouse urgings. And Tesla also dismissed ancillary discoveries that would be immensely important today. Tesla could create plasma balls on command but thought it was nothing more than a fancy light show - they still don't know (supposedly) how he could do it so easily and consistently. Scientist today would like to recreate Tesla's machines so they can try containing a fusion reaction inside plasma.
  2. The fact that Yang's experiment has a high failure rate at sample size of 1 means it may have a high failure rate at sample size 2 or 200 or 2000 or 20,0000. Yang doesn't know how UBI will work out but yet he talks about UBI so assuredly - so why hasn't he, with all his wealth, replicated the UBI experience with a sample size of 10 for 1 or 2 years? Certainly doable considering his wealth is estimated at 3 to 4 million. If he's so convinced that UBI is so good then he should have zero qualms about investing his own money into a small UBI experiment - he could even Patreon it.
  3. Corporations are comprised of individuals. Individuals working collectively produce innovations; the collaboration and resources/facilities needed are made possible by the aggregated wealth generated by corporations.
I mention bullet #1 to demonstrate that IQ is not always correlated to innovations that produce better standards of living - I thank God that Tesla licensed his AC technology to Westinghouse early in his career. If he had waited until later, he never would have gotten the funding to build it and we may all still be using DC current in our homes. More than IQ is needed to innovate - Tesla was a genius but he failed to recognize the synergy between capital growth and innovation.

I mention bullet #2 to highlight that Yang is guessing and hasn't even attempted his own experiments with his own money or effort. He could ask for a grant or fund via Patreon if he so desired. So he wants us to confiscate 2.3 to 4.3 trillion dollars from actual innovators and producers just on a hunch? How is this train of reasoning even remotely logical?

Bullet #3: aggregated capital is needed to bring about market and technological revolutions - the money has to be pooled. Corporations are already doing this and providing the framework for collaboration of individuals. UBI places no incentives on collaborations nor does it provide the means for aggregating capital to do so - it's up to the individuals to find the way. We already have individuals collaborating and innovating within corporations - there is no need to take from them in the hopes that a no strings attached UBI payout is going to automagically generate even more innovations than what is already occurring within existing companies and groups. Taking from innovators to give to non-innovators is ground breaking and smart but giving existing innovators and their corporations tax breaks is stupid - huh?

7Wannabe5
Posts: 5009
Joined: Fri Oct 18, 2013 9:03 am

Re: The benefits of a basic income // much higher min wage

Post by 7Wannabe5 » Sun Jun 09, 2019 6:20 pm

IlliniDave wrote:Okay, well you are possibly correct if you just isolate the payout, but upstream in the real world a notional Scrooge M would possibly have millions taken from him to fund the program before getting his $12K back. And the question is are those millions millions he would be putting to work, injecting into the economy via voluntary consumption transactions, donating to charities/causes of his choosing, or leaving in his vault of treasure to molder? I sense the assumption behind people who tend to support guys like Yang is the latter, where I think it is the least likely thing a business, corporation, or wealthy individual would do.
This doesn't make sense to me. I would answer "none of the above", because the wealthy Scrooge McDucks I know keep almost all of their "money" invested, and try to generate as little income subject to tax each year as possible. Are you implying that UBI program would likely cause U.S. equity markets to take a hit?

OTOH, I suppose that rich (as opposed to wealthy) folk who usually do draw a large income each year in order to purchase luxury goods would take a hit, if the program was to be funded through income taxation.
Campitor wrote:I suspect that those in the top 1% IQ are already doing what they want to do and no amount of capital reallocation will budge them into any innovating endeavours that they are not already doing.
Right, more "free" money would likely just make them even more likely to behave in quirky, slacker, don't-give- a-rat's-ass-about -society-as-a-whole manner. I'm sure most of them have been warped by experiences such as mine in the 6th grade when my "reward" for completing the entire independent reading series was the privilege of tutoring two very slow boys named Carl and Carl. Like it was my fault that Carl's father married his cousin, and Carl's mother drank too much malt liquor during pregnancy. So, on second thought, maybe it would work better if all the 1% IQ people were put in prison in tightly packed cells (or cubicles), only to be released upon production of 10 acceptable patents per capita.
jacob wrote:With such an arrangement, a set of business structures intended to teach people how to pass IQ tests would quickly emergence. It would resemble the present educational system with teachers, coaches, consultants, administrators, etc. except the sole focus would be on making people better at solving IQ puzzles. IOW, it would create the cost of a sorting system being born by those who go for the ultimate price of a "1%"-stipend but fail to get it.

Basically, you'll be creating a large scale Jeopardy competition.
Yes, it is true that any imposition of hard line boundary will likely increase chaos in that region. OTOH, where will all these teachers and coaches be found if all the other 1%-ers are already slacking quirky on their piles of moolah? Obvious conjecture would be that they will have to be recruited from foreign lands. If they are well compensated for these services, this will result in positive feedback loop with very large increase in U.S. innovation "trickling down" or "pebble in pond-ing out" to also create increase in global innovation!!!


Anyways, my entire line of reasoning may be moot, given the ongoing dialectic between Hall, West and Greenspan vis a vis the Navier-Stokes and Cobb-Douglas equations. Unfortunately, I am lacking the necessary motivation to actually attempt the math, because it is already the case that affluent men buy me too much ice cream.

Laura Ingalls
Posts: 307
Joined: Mon Jun 25, 2012 3:13 am

Re: The benefits of a basic income // much higher min wage

Post by Laura Ingalls » Sun Jun 09, 2019 8:08 pm

jacob wrote:
Sat Jun 08, 2019 10:12 am


Basically, you'll be creating a large scale Jeopardy competition.
Or worse be like the college cheating scandal on steroids :cry:

Also all of us that have been trained to administer individual intelligence tests have literally walked around with access to the answer book and aren’t testable ;) We would need the money to make us less tempted to be bribed or compensation for our brilliance ;)

IlliniDave
Posts: 2545
Joined: Wed Apr 02, 2014 7:46 pm

Re: The benefits of a basic income // much higher min wage

Post by IlliniDave » Mon Jun 10, 2019 6:30 am

7Wannabe5 wrote:
Sun Jun 09, 2019 6:20 pm
This doesn't make sense to me. I would answer "none of the above", because the wealthy Scrooge McDucks I know keep almost all of their "money" invested, and try to generate as little income subject to tax each year as possible. Are you implying that UBI program would likely cause U.S. equity markets to take a hit?

OTOH, I suppose that rich (as opposed to wealthy) folk who usually do draw a large income each year in order to purchase luxury goods would take a hit, if the program was to be funded through income taxation.
Investing ("putting to work") is one of those voluntary transactions (should have been more careful with my diction there) that keeps capital available for use by the economy (and gov'ts). It (and consumer spending and charity) stand in opposition to the Scrooge McDuck treasure vault meme where the money is in a static pile locked away from the rest of the world.

Yes, I do think it's likely Yang's Freedon Dividend version of UBI would impact US equity markets. I suspect there would be winners and losers, but overall I'd suspect lower valuations as a result of higher corporate taxation. I don't know if that qualifies as taking a hit. But that wasn't the point I was making. Another way of stating the point (has been made by others here IIRC) is that on balance, UBI takes money from people who are good at money and gives it to people who are bad at money. In a government-mandated charity framework, it's an option.

In an economic policy framework though, I don't see the merits. This subthread of the conversation started with me saying (paraphrase) that I don't see how taking money from one consumer* and giving it to another is going to result in net new economic growth. In context (discussion of Yang's Freedom Dividend plank) I was really talking about the aggregate effect of the redistribution.

*Here I mean consumer in the widest sense, which could include the person who gives money to charities, purchases securities as investments, invests money in their own business, makes their money available for loans (e.g., bank deposits), or purchases goods and services for personal use/consumption.

Campitor
Posts: 850
Joined: Thu Aug 20, 2015 11:49 am

Re: The benefits of a basic income // much higher min wage

Post by Campitor » Mon Jun 10, 2019 9:04 am

7Wannabe5 wrote:
Sun Jun 09, 2019 6:20 pm
Right, more "free" money would likely just make them even more likely to behave in quirky, slacker, don't-give- a-rat's-ass-about -society-as-a-whole manner. I'm sure most of them have been warped by experiences such as mine in the 6th grade when my "reward" for completing the entire independent reading series was the privilege of tutoring two very slow boys named Carl and Carl. Like it was my fault that Carl's father married his cousin, and Carl's mother drank too much malt liquor during pregnancy. So, on second thought, maybe it would work better if all the 1% IQ people were put in prison in tightly packed cells (or cubicles), only to be released upon production of 10 acceptable patents per capita.
Smart people do stupid things all the time and their behavior optimization falls within the Pareto distribution framework. 10% of them are doing sub-optimal things with their intelligence, 80% of them are probably doing things that keep the world's wheels turning but are do nothing of significance in regards to enhancing the quality of life for large swaths of people, and 10% of them are creating breakthroughs in Science, Engineering, and Technology that lead to quality of life improvements or push our understanding of the universe, and ourselves, forward.

I suspect the 160+ IQ crowd is doing what they want to do otherwise, with their exceptional IQs, they would've figured out how to make what they want possible. Sometimes having a 160+ IQ is a detriment because that type of cognitive firepower comes with baggage; you can't accept that anyone else may be correct or have a better idea. My personal experience working with these IQ outliers is some have a hard time playing nice in the sandbox with other high IQ people. Giving money to these types of recalcitrant geniuses would only be a waste. Which is why high IQ as a criteria for getting "UBI" assistance, or any other money via forced redistribution is a bad idea. But I certainly wouldn't advocate for putting them into prison. ;)

bigato
Posts: 2118
Joined: Sat Mar 05, 2011 12:43 pm

Re: The benefits of a basic income // much higher min wage

Post by bigato » Mon Jun 10, 2019 12:47 pm

You could also give all the money to software developers working at companies that pay no tax not even in their home country, let alone the rest of the world where they profit. And then and have the rest of the population living on social welfare.

7Wannabe5
Posts: 5009
Joined: Fri Oct 18, 2013 9:03 am

Re: The benefits of a basic income // much higher min wage

Post by 7Wannabe5 » Mon Jun 10, 2019 6:19 pm

IlliniDave wrote:*Here I mean consumer in the widest sense, which could include the person who gives money to charities, purchases securities as investments, invests money in their own business, makes their money available for loans (e.g., bank deposits), or purchases goods and services for personal use/consumption.
Maybe in order to maintain ability to differentiate between consumer vs. producer, we could agree on "decision maker" as descriptor at level of behavioral psychology? I agree that when my wealthy 78 year old friend reads an article and then buys some more stock and my 22 year old niece looks at an advertisement and buys some more hot pants, they are both financial decision-makers. I do not know if I agree that one is a better financial decision-maker than the other, because I do not know how to value future dividend payments vs. future likes on Instagram.
Campitor wrote:I suspect the 160+ IQ crowd is doing what they want to do otherwise, with their exceptional IQs, they would've figured out how to make what they want possible.
The top 1% for IQ starts at 135, not 160. If you attended a middling-quality, middling size high school with a graduating class of 400, then the top 4 students in your class would likely qualify*. Almost everyone would know somebody who would be drawing 1.2 million every year under my modest plan. IMO, this way of divvying it up makes it more clear what a shit-ton of money it would be in total. I also don't believe in any magic formula for innovation, even though that kind of implies that I have very little faith in the "science" of economics.

*And most of the members of this forum!

Campitor
Posts: 850
Joined: Thu Aug 20, 2015 11:49 am

Re: The benefits of a basic income // much higher min wage

Post by Campitor » Mon Jun 10, 2019 7:28 pm

bigato wrote:
Mon Jun 10, 2019 12:47 pm
You could also give all the money to software developers working at companies that pay no tax not even in their home country, let alone the rest of the world where they profit. And then and have the rest of the population living on social welfare.
At the scale that they are innovating/producing, the free market will dictate what money they get - they don't need any additional money via forced governmental redistribution of capital. If they make products people want/need, customers will beat a path to their door. :D

Campitor
Posts: 850
Joined: Thu Aug 20, 2015 11:49 am

Re: The benefits of a basic income // much higher min wage

Post by Campitor » Mon Jun 10, 2019 7:43 pm

7Wannabe5 wrote:
Mon Jun 10, 2019 6:19 pm
I also don't believe in any magic formula for innovation, even though that kind of implies that I have very little faith in the "science" of economics.
I don't think there is a magic formula either. I believe there is a unique set of circumstances that meld into a synergistic whole that can't be replicated or boosted by adding an isolated ingredient such as money. Centers of innovation and industry have amalgamated these ingredients successfully as indicated by their market success. If they should fail, and failure is part of a healthy market, it indicates they are no longer utilizing capital successfully or have been rendered obsolete by new technology/products.

If these failing companies were given money with no strings attached or end date, they would continue operating long past their prime and would be utilizing limited resources best allocated to more desired/needed outputs. Government shouldn't be handing out money to companies with no strings attached nor should they be tipping the balance or creating monopolies via preferential legislation.

Post Reply