<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1"
http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body text="#000000" bgcolor="#FFFFFF">
<br>
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- <br>
Hash: SHA1 <br>
<br>
On 16/07/2013 14:46, Antonio Garcia wrote:<br>
<span style="white-space: pre;">> Inconditional basic income is
the prima facie simplistic solution to make everybody equal
without too much effort, a way highly appreciated by way too many.
It is easy to be in favour of the pretended results of IBI, if one
does not bother to do the math and social engineering. Anyone a
little more preoccupied by the mere logic and really thinking
about the benefit for the whole of humanity should be way more
reserved about it.</span><br>
<br>
Anybody claiming that a a basic income is a panacea is evidently
wrong. Yes, it's a simple concept and the outcomes are probably
overstated. I don't think anybody is seriously suggesting that it's
implemented without deep research into the mechanics and effects
both good and bad.<br>
<br>
<span style="white-space: pre;">> IBI is like the banking
bailout... it creates an unavoidable obligation for the nation to
cough up cash...</span><br>
<br>
The same can be said, to a greater or lesser degree, for *any*
welfare system, to be honest. Of course the system needs to be
costed properly before introduction.<br>
<br>
<span style="white-space: pre;">> without too much of an idea
about how it is going to pay for it. Most people suggest the same
money that is used to provide social welfare now be used for it,
without checking if that same money would eventually keep being
available for social welfare in the near future.<br>
><br>
> A scheme that would pay unconditionally will end up paying
more in total than present social welfare, and if income for the
state diminishes, its debt will skyrocket even more.</span><br>
<br>
I don't think this is much different from currently implemented
welfare systems.<br>
<br>
One benefit of the basic income, in my opinion, is that it's easier
to identify what the cost will be - it's a function of population.
Contrasted with current welfare systems which are means-tested, they
depend on things like the level of unemployment, and other economic
factors, and have administrative overheads. The UBI is a simpler
system.<br>
<br>
<span style="white-space: pre;">> The strangest bedfellow IBI may
find are corporations.</span><br>
<br>
I don't think this is a good argument at all, if the policy is based
on evidence and achieves its aims it doesn't matter who else
supports the policy.<br>
<br>
Right-wing, left wing, corporations or labour unions. I don't care
who supports our policies.<br>
<br>
<span style="white-space: pre;">> Why? Because easy get, easy
go... people would spend way less responsibly, and specific
businesses would tap the constant flood of unconditional money
providing psychologically attractive rubbish with the highest
possible benefit margin. Say hi to homo ludicus. Remember what the
best example of a possible outcome would be... The battery cocoons
of Matrix? Full of sensation junkies?<br>
><br>
> Nations lacking income to pay decent amounts will be paying
less and less, while corporations providing emotional junk to fill
peoples dead time will mercilessly fight the competition... piracy
:( to cope all the market for bored time paid for by the
unconditional income while it lasts. Corporations wont pay when
they take over governing from the state, they will only cash in.</span><br>
<br>
I also don't buy this argument (although if you can provide evidence
to support it, I may change my mind).<br>
<br>
Yes, a UBI would be a profound change to the economy, and the market
will change as a result but what you're stating is that if people
have money is that they will "waste" it because the evil
corporations will be able to sell shiny things to them. That sounds
like a very judgemental position to take.<br>
<br>
Some people - including rich conservative politicians - have
stigmatised people who receive benefits in the UK for spending money
on things that their detractors consider improper. Tobacco, alcohol,
gambling, fast food etc. People who aren't on benefits spend their
money on these things as well, including the very rich. The
hypocrisy is disgusting IMHO.<br>
<br>
If one wants to reduce the consumption of tobacco, alcohol, fast
food and gambling, especially amongst the low-paid and those on
benefits, there are other, better and less hypocritical and
class-war based methods to do it.<br>
<br>
I'm not denying that the consumer culture is a problem, but you're
targeting the wrong place to combat it.<br>
<br>
<span style="white-space: pre;">> Who will end up playing
animated furniture for a living in the Soylent Green we will all
have been begging for?<br>
><br>
> Fools.</span><br>
<br>
I'm not sure I understand what you're getting at with this one (I
haven't watched Soylent Green).<br>
<br>
<span style="white-space: pre;">> There is no simple alternative
for the compensation for effort scheme. If nobody makes an effort,
nobody gets compensation. If only some make an effort, there is
not enough to compensate all.</span><br>
<br>
An unconditional basic income doesn't remove the incentive to work.
It just means you don't have to work *to survive*. Obviously it
would need to be set at a level that ensures that there is
sufficient supply to match demand in the labour market.<br>
<br>
<span style="white-space: pre;">> If the problem is way too
uneven distribution, the solution is not to simply mandate even
distribution... the effort has to be done to analyse why some
insist in accumulating way beyond what at first sight should
constitute a fair share. Try to look at it some other way, and
those will go on accumulating under whatever new circumstances you
create, even thanking you for making it way easier for them to
have a guaranteed stream of steady income.</span><br>
<br>
Like I said at the top, UBI is not a panacea. It won't (and doesn't
try to) completely solve the problem of uneven distribution. It's
human nature that people are greedy and envious of others. No
economic policy in the world will change that.<br>
<br>
<span style="white-space: pre;">> What links way too many of
those subjects is that the deep thinking about them that we do
nears ZERO, as always the easy way to think about things.</span><br>
<br>
Part of the problem is that we don't have the resources to do
in-depth research behind most of our policies. Thankfully, Pirates
don't exist in a vacuum and we're not the only people investigating
policies such as this.<br>
<br>
<span style="white-space: pre;">> Too much of what we want or try
is too simplistic and too effortless... it may be fun to want it,
but it is hardly realistic to believe you are going to get it...
unless it benefits somebody else who will be doing efforts to get
it behind the scene.</span><br>
<br>
One of the core planks of Pirate policies is that we believe in
evidence-based policy. If our policies do not stand up to the body
of the evidence then we should *welcome* the fact that they won't be
implemented.<br>
<br>
<span style="white-space: pre;">><br>
> Useful idiots anyone?<br>
><br>
> Yes, too many :( .</span><br>
<br>
it's easy to be a cynic :)<br>
<br>
We all fall in to that trap at some point or another.<br>
<br>
- -- Jack<br>
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
<br>
Version: GnuPG v2.0.17 (MingW32)
<br>
Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - <a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://www.enigmail.net/">http://www.enigmail.net/</a>
<br>
<br>
iQIcBAEBAgAGBQJR5V24AAoJELqwthbBFTHvOdEP/RAjN1hR++LTUTsUMjr/F8tv
<br>
mwoi0L1kuOR9xah2TwgiJAYrlAr8u0r6yt583fzQnHT4NKmJ8J2PffnZ8qfv4ArC
<br>
b8X8wjvEhO4e4nHp5rS9GAXLZGdUcdAb4jGESNkoXUcUkFKQsOrWov1cJMbXCVUu
<br>
xvBRiXaaIXPBFRKzNrnuLAxBp0fi67iFOC1JyFxW/KzPs89fNqcqQunttqS4MobR
<br>
RwJHSRfy0DF8Ksb9CV98M/Pz9WuzXmtdhZNhHVsraolVWM0W12UEtFB1+YFast92
<br>
HQZrs5T+A6IcsySQbyMZpj682RkhV5yIcmn3CKktXxZ1oHU7zh07ys2wLaUn1yph
<br>
vZ4Rzn/4F8OFUaIMhAl5cBjqaR/bTOdullgaf5LH+Xf5olXNlTSdTCg0QOgxh7Vq
<br>
cvDSKw+YMii9T7GA0bcLGUGXwUI5iN7C0ZbO3IOp9b0m9mZjNuMgojHWt4Io5TyW
<br>
FnWboMF/MKBE8LI0YLLRmf3bXR+z7DZkPwxYI/s43xlXolw9667/efiVR6Y6Sx86
<br>
kmvZZdZTJ2+OTwV8BdkrP+xpXnnhfaN+6Ytvtq7h40MbA4xIBVmMiSRR53w0UMi5
<br>
lM002MwEH+FuV2ZXWceV7wFN29fFPmpawilvD1U4dSHGlsQJSoaRPdkFCxhmndNq
<br>
U5CilCG+g00gILL/SZSH
<br>
=MjY3
<br>
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
<br>
<br>
</body>
</html>