Citizen's Dividend

[MachineGhost]

That would be - since I've never said that or believe it in any way, it's a huge strawman.

Maybe, but I thought you were the "token liberal" that almost always believes in "Big Government" -- or did I strawman that up all wrong?

[MachineGhost]

So it would turn productive people into unproductive ones, the opposite of the idea.

That's not what I said. We here are already more or less productive. $15K does not seem enough of a wealth effect to induce more productivity unless you're lower class or maybe retired lower-middle class already. It's hard to make general statements when you have variying COLA and even active ERE followers in here. Where do you draw the line between acceptable sustainability and conspicious consumption??? All I know is personal happiness is maxed out on an income of about $60K. So $15K isn't going to add much effect the closer and closer you get to that figure. For someone earning under the poverty level, its like winning the lottery. It's life changing. They can improve their living standard, they can go to school to get etucated, follow their passions, start a new business, etc..

Is it possible the CD might not even be need in a post-capitalism, post-scarcity world? If everything is nearly free if not free outright from automation autofabrication machines, occasional barter may be all that you need if you want to do an exchange for something else that someone has.

[MachineGhost]

So it would turn productive people into unproductive ones, the opposite of the idea.

That's not what I said. We here are already more or less productive. $15K does not seem enough of a wealth effect to induce more productivity unless you're lower class or maybe retired lower-middle class already. It's hard to make general statements when you have variying COLA and even active ERE followers in here. Where do you draw the line between acceptable sustainability and conspicious consumption??? All I know is personal happiness is maxed out on an income of about $60K. So $15K isn't going to add much effect the closer and closer you get to that figure. For someone earning under the poverty level, its like winning the lottery.

FWIW, I sure could use another 15K from the government, but that isn't likely to happen if the CD replaces everything else!* Hence, it would actually be more productive for anyone to work instead of retiring if you want a better living standard. As well as save along the way which the $15K would help tremendously in since like up to 60% of Americans only have up to $25K maximum saved for retirement!

* Obviously, we have to grandfather in current SS recipients and have to extend the grandfathering all the way back to the point where anyone's SS earnings contributions towards their eventual SS check is no higher than the proposed CD. So I guess the SSA isn't gonna be abolished anytime soon.

[jafs]

That would be - since I've never said that or believe it in any way, it's a huge strawman.

Maybe, but I thought you were the "token liberal" that almost always believes in "Big Government" -- or did I strawman that up all wrong?

Yep, you did.

You all are generally so anti-government that somebody just has to think government sometimes does things well to be out of the mainstream here.

I just think things like "Kill the Beast" are examples of throwing out the baby with the bathwater.

[jafs]

So it would turn productive people into unproductive ones, the opposite of the idea.

That's not what I said. We here are already more or less productive. $15K does not seem enough of a wealth effect to induce more productivity unless you're lower class or maybe retired lower-middle class already. It's hard to make general statements when you have variying COLA and even active ERE followers in here. Where do you draw the line between acceptable sustainability and conspicious consumption??? All I know is personal happiness is maxed out on an income of about $60K. So $15K isn't going to add much effect the closer and closer you get to that figure. For someone earning under the poverty level, its like winning the lottery. It's life changing. They can improve their living standard, they can go to school to get etucated, follow their passions, start a new business, etc..

Is it possible the CD might not even be need in a post-capitalism, post-scarcity world? If everything is nearly free if not free outright from automation autofabrication machines, occasional barter may be all that you need if you want to do an exchange for something else that someone has.

I know - it was a little provocative.

But, so far, that's the effect here - nobody has said they'd work more, produce more, start a business, etc. It's all been about saving, investing, retiring earlier, buying some new stuff, etc.

Is it possible that lower income folks would act differently? Sure, but they could also just live on it.

[jafs]

As it gets more and more complicated, it loses some of that original simplification idea/benefit.

I'm not sure you'd have to keep SS/Medicare, but it would be politically hard to change those. For all the people getting less SS (which might be a lot, since the median is about $14K/yr), the CD would be an improvement. Of course, if you took away their Medicare benefits, that would be a bad thing, and they haven't had years to save up for health care.

It would actually be better for us than the combination of SS/Medicare, but that's probably a little unusual. As long as there are ACA plans with subsidies, that is.

[MachineGhost]

I know - it was a little provocative.

But, so far, that's the effect here - nobody has said they'd work more, produce more, start a business, etc. It's all been about saving, investing, retiring earlier, buying some new stuff, etc.

CD would be an ideological revolution in more ways than one. We don't even have such a level of freedom right now to properly envision what our new choices and behavior would be nor all the new opportunities that would open up. But, I find it curious that you don't think investing and saving improves productivity. And you also seem to be overlooking (I've assumed it was self-evident) about the demand side economic effects of that $15K.

Do you understand how an economy and capitalism functions to provide employment and increase living standards over the long-term? Serious question, beceause liberals generally do not. If I got an extra $15K right now and decided not to relocate or upscale my living standard (in all likely I would not, because an extra $15K is honestly just not that enough of a meaningful lifestyle impact in high COLA SoCal), I would invest it. A certain portion of that investment would be going directly to startup companies. Another portion would go to directly to funding corporation's debt needs. Another portion would go to providing liquidity to investors in the stock market. Some would go to the Treasury to fund transfer payment schemes. Some would buy gold bullion and keep that entire industry gainfully employed right down to the colored mining worker in South Africa. And so on and so on...

[jafs]

I know - it was a little provocative.

But, so far, that's the effect here - nobody has said they'd work more, produce more, start a business, etc. It's all been about saving, investing, retiring earlier, buying some new stuff, etc.

CD would be an ideological revolution in more ways than one. We don't even have such a level of freedom right now to properly envision what our new choices and behavior would be nor all the new opportunities that would open up. But, I find it curious that you don't think investing and saving improves productivity. And you also seem to be overlooking (I've assumed it was self-evident) about the demand side economic effects of that $15K.

Do you understand how an economy and capitalism functions to provide employment and increase living standards over the long-term? Serious question, beceause liberals generally do not. If I got an extra $15K right now and decided not to relocate or upscale my living standard (in all likely I would not, because an extra $15K is honestly just not that enough of a meaningful lifestyle impact in high COLA SoCal), I would invest it. A certain portion of that investment would be going directly to startup companies. Another portion would go to directly to funding corporation's debt needs. Another portion would go to providing liquidity to investors in the stock market. Some would go to the Treasury to fund transfer payment schemes. Some would buy gold bullion and keep that entire industry gainfully employed right down to the colored mining worker in South Africa. And so on and so on...

I agree that injecting $15k/yr into the economy, if people spend it to buy things, would have an overall positive economic effect.

Investing and saving don't generally improve productivity, certainly not directly, and only under some narrow circumstances, indirectly. Except for ipo's, the stock market is virtually all a "secondary market" - money/stocks are just moving from one person to another, and none of it goes to the company any more.

Investing in Treasury bonds helps the government continue it's borrowing and spending routine, that's true.

Gold is complex - I imagine that much of it is also a secondary market, but I don't know for sure. In some circumstances, investments in precious metals and the like sometimes involve supporting brutal dictatorships in other countries (blood diamonds come to mind).

Lower income folks aren't going to be investing like that, almost certainly - they'll be spending it, which is fine economically. But the goal of increasing their productivity, lessening the dependence on government, etc. seems uncertain to me, especially if the amounts are higher than subsistence level, which you seem to prefer.

[jafs]

'Fess up, you just want some of that "government cheese"

True story - an acquaintance of mine lived in NY back in the 80's, and his phone # was mistakenly printed in a NYT article as the number to call for the government cheese program. He got a lot of calls about it, and people didn't believe it was the wrong number. Eventually he just started asking people how much cheese they wanted instead of getting into an argument about it.

It took a while before the NYT printed a correction.

[jafs]

Investing could have a direct connection to productivity, if you invested some money directly with a company starting out, or lent people money to start a business, etc.

And, savings could have a connection, if banks used deposits to generate loans - but you guys have browbeaten me plenty about how that's not actually the case

[Pointedstick]

Lower income folks aren't going to be investing like that, almost certainly - they'll be spending it, which is fine economically. But the goal of increasing their productivity, lessening the dependence on government, etc. seems uncertain to me, especially if the amounts are higher than subsistence level, which you seem to prefer.

Everyone's income is someone else's spending. The generated productivity comes when they spend the money on stuff that constitutes demand for what other people produce, and vice versa.

[jafs]

Sure, that makes sense.

But, I thought the idea of the cd was to improve the recipients' productivity directly, so the thought was that low income folks wouldn't just get it and spend it.

Current programs like food stamps/subsidized housing do the same thing economically, right?

[Pointedstick]

Sure, that makes sense.

But, I thought the idea of the cd was to improve the recipients' productivity directly, so the thought was that low income folks wouldn't just get it and spend it.

Current programs like food stamps/subsidized housing do the same thing economically, right?

Sort of. Food stamps is better, but subsidized housing distort the real estate market in an area and often does more harm than good in the aggregate.

The theoretical advantages of a citizen's dividend are multifaceted: it replaces a series of government bureaucracies and social programs; has near-zero overhead associated with it; cannot easily become the target of fraud and abuse; does not create any perverse incentives not to work; and is actually fairer and more humane than the current safely net, which is a complicated system that can be capricious and challenging to navigate.

[MachineGhost]

Investing and saving don't generally improve productivity, certainly not directly, and only under some narrow circumstances, indirectly. Except for ipo's, the stock market is virtually all a "secondary market" - money/stocks are just moving from one person to another, and none of it goes to the company any more.

I specifically didn't mention the secondary market because it doesn't have any direct effects, so don't bring that up.

Gold is complex - I imagine that much of it is also a secondary market, but I don't know for sure. In some circumstances, investments in precious metals and the like sometimes involve supporting brutal dictatorships in other countries (blood diamonds come to mind).

Well, you imagine wrong; gold isn't an investment, its a commodity so someone is always profiting from transactions. And you're really reaching to make an association between blood diamonds and gold. All the surface level, easy to get at gold nuggets is long, long gone unlike blood diamonds.

[MachineGhost]

Lower income folks aren't going to be investing like that, almost certainly - they'll be spending it, which is fine economically. But the goal of increasing their productivity, lessening the dependence on government, etc. seems uncertain to me, especially if the amounts are higher than subsistence level, which you seem to prefer.

Why are you so fixated on the CD recipient increasing one's personal productivity instead of that of others? That is not how capitalism works. You invest or pay others as the inducement for them to increase their productivity for mutual benefits. You only increase your own if you're selling something or want your first job or a better job. The point of the CD is to provide a floor so you can take risks like that. Taking risks is how you improve productivity.

[MachineGhost]

Does anyone think our benevolent government would actually close departments and shrink? History tells us otherwise. Government is like a Hydra. You cut off one head [department] and two more grow in its place.

Maybe not at the formal agency level, but government employees are not immune from technological unemployment either. And the CD will actaully pave the way for getting rid of those parasites.

The CD seems almost like the holy grail in what it can accomplish for "Starving the Beast".

[jafs]

Sure, that makes sense.

But, I thought the idea of the cd was to improve the recipients' productivity directly, so the thought was that low income folks wouldn't just get it and spend it.

Current programs like food stamps/subsidized housing do the same thing economically, right?

Sort of. Food stamps is better, but subsidized housing distort the real estate market in an area and often does more harm than good in the aggregate.

The theoretical advantages of a citizen's dividend are multifaceted: it replaces a series of government bureaucracies and social programs; has near-zero overhead associated with it; cannot easily become the target of fraud and abuse; does not create any perverse incentives not to work; and is actually fairer and more humane than the current safely net, which is a complicated system that can be capricious and challenging to navigate.

Well, I guess it depends on what you mean by subsidized housing - Section 8 housing means that the government pays some of the rent for the tenant, if I understand it right. So it wouldn't matter if we gave people money they spent directly on that or if the government did it, from an economic benefit analysis.

I agree it would be simpler, although not as simple as suggested, if adjustments are made for differences in costs of living, and if WiseOne's idea of tax/revenue neutrality was enacted.

One could argue that giving money to people that don't need it, like you and me, is by definition fraudulent in some ways. And I can guarantee that any system we put in place will generate some people trying to scam the system - that just seems like human nature to me.

It has the same effect on working or not working for low income people, if they can live off of the cd.

I agree about the complexity and difficulty of navigating the current system.

[jafs]

Investing and saving don't generally improve productivity, certainly not directly, and only under some narrow circumstances, indirectly. Except for ipo's, the stock market is virtually all a "secondary market" - money/stocks are just moving from one person to another, and none of it goes to the company any more.

I specifically didn't mention the secondary market because it doesn't have any direct effects, so don't bring that up.

Gold is complex - I imagine that much of it is also a secondary market, but I don't know for sure. In some circumstances, investments in precious metals and the like sometimes involve supporting brutal dictatorships in other countries (blood diamonds come to mind).

Well, you imagine wrong; gold isn't an investment, its a commodity so someone is always profiting from transactions. And you're really reaching to make an association between blood diamonds and gold. All the surface level, easy to get at gold nuggets is long, long gone unlike blood diamonds.

You said investing improves productivity - the kind of investing most of us talk about is investing in the stock market, which is a secondary market. If you meant you'd invest directly in a start up business, that's a different story. But it's not part of the pp investments, which involve stock market index funds. So if you took your $15K and invested in your pp, there's no direct connection to companies.

It depends again on what kind of gold investments - most people on here buy gold coins. So if I go into my dealer and buy some coins, then hold them for a while and sell them back to him/her, isn't that a secondary market? It's a bunch of coins trading hands just like stocks do, not somebody buying gold bullion from a mine in South America.

I remember when people were upset about buying South African Kruggerands, don't you?

And, please don't tell me what to discuss in my posts - I don't do that to you.

[jafs]

Lower income folks aren't going to be investing like that, almost certainly - they'll be spending it, which is fine economically. But the goal of increasing their productivity, lessening the dependence on government, etc. seems uncertain to me, especially if the amounts are higher than subsistence level, which you seem to prefer.

Why are you so fixated on the CD recipient increasing one's personal productivity instead of that of others? That is not how capitalism works. You invest or pay others as the inducement for them to increase their productivity for mutual benefits. You only increase your own if you're selling something or want your first job or a better job. The point of the CD is to provide a floor so you can take risks like that. Taking risks is how you improve productivity.

Because that's one of the basic stated goals of it from the presentation on here.

People say lower income folks will now get a job, because they don't have perverse incentives not to work.

I just don't see that happening much, if the dividend is high enough to live on (in your version it's substantially higher than in WiseOne's).

[jafs]

.

[jafs]

Does anyone think our benevolent government would actually close departments and shrink? History tells us otherwise. Government is like a Hydra. You cut off one head [department] and two more grow in its place.

Maybe not at the formal agency level, but government employees are not immune from technological unemployment either. And the CD will actaully pave the way for getting rid of those parasites.

The CD seems almost like the holy grail in what it can accomplish for "Starving the Beast".

And where will all of those formerly employed people work?

[clacy]

After thinking about this some more,.... I think a CD would likely result in inflation, which would essentially adjust prices to account for the CD.

I think the net result would be that intelligent, hard working people would make good decisions with their CD money, such as investing it, starting businesses, using it for education, etc.

People that don't have the ability to make good decisions would generally make poor decisions with it.

Likely there would be little to no effect on wealth distribution, but we could sleep well knowing that there was a basic safety net for people at least.

[WiseOne]

After thinking about this some more,.... I think a CD would likely result in inflation, which would essentially adjust prices to account for the CD.

Maybe but not necessarily. I don't think increased spending is all it takes to create inflation. For that you need an expansion of the money supply, which the CD would not do. It's going to shift spending from funding government bureaucracy to consumer goods and investment. That may increase some prices but it would be a giant shot in the arm for the GDP, so salaries should rise as well.

Except for jaf of course, since he doesn't need it :-)

[jafs]

Maybe not at the formal agency level, but government employees are not immune from technological unemployment either. And the CD will actaully pave the way for getting rid of those parasites.

The CD seems almost like the holy grail in what it can accomplish for "Starving the Beast".

And where will all of those formerly employed people work?

They won't need to work, because they will be receiving a citizen's dividend.

Even better!

[jafs]

After thinking about this some more,.... I think a CD would likely result in inflation, which would essentially adjust prices to account for the CD.

Maybe but not necessarily. I don't think increased spending is all it takes to create inflation. For that you need an expansion of the money supply, which the CD would not do. It's going to shift spending from funding government bureaucracy to consumer goods and investment. That may increase some prices but it would be a giant shot in the arm for the GDP, so salaries should rise as well.

Except for jaf of course, since he doesn't need it :-)

Ha ha

A rise in prices accompanied by a rise in salaries is still inflation, isn't it? It's just inflation + a rise in salaries. If purchasing power stays constant, then it's not any different than before.

And, government employees spend their money on the same stuff the rest of us do, don't they? They buy consumer goods, and if they have extra money, maybe they invest it as well.