I am still unsure if my position should be “mostly not responsible” or “not responsible at all”
If “not at all” won’t you have issues with e.g. the criminal justice system?
Wealth is produced, and the money do not disappear (does it actually? my understanding of economy is pretty basic) when you give it out since they spend it as consumer the same way the people you take it from would do.
Money is just convenient tokens, you can’t consume money. What you want is value in the form of valuable (that is, desirable) goods and services. Most goods and services disappear when you consume them: if you eat a carrot, that carrot is gone.
When you give out (free) money you generate demand for goods and services. In the context of a capitalist society there is a common assumption that “the market” will automagically generate the supply (that is, actual goods and services) to satisfy the demand. However if you are not in the context of a capitalist society any more, you can’t assume that the supply will be there to meet the demand—see the example of the Soviet Union, etc.
When you redistribute money, people use that money to buy stuff. Someone has to produce the actual stuff and moving money around will not, by itself, lead to actual stuff being produced. If no one is growing carrots, there will be none to be had, free money or no free money.
In the context of a capitalist society there is a common assumption that “the market” will automagically generate the supply
In the current system people produce goods for their subsistence. Maybe if you’d give subsistence to everyone (basic income for example) and let people produce in exchange for “more”, the system would still be viable.
The advantages are nobody left out, more flexibility in your work, people doing what they like (more artist and stuff), not having to work to survive (that counts for some). It would increase the happiness of the persons concerned
The disadvantages are a net loss of production compared to the current systems and the producers of good being worse off.
Maybe the trade off is not worth it, I’d like to have it tried just to check.
If “not at all” won’t you have issues with e.g. the criminal justice system?
I am indecisive, even if they are not responsible, criminals are harmful for the rest of the population so imprisonment can be necessary. However the justice system should be focus on rehabilitation rather than punishment.
Your question made me think, coming from that one could perfectly argue that since people not doing anything are harmful to the rest of the society (technically they are taking money from the productive part) so they should be forced to be productive.
Bearing that, I would be fine with giving unproductive persons incentives so they become productive. But then you have the question at how much incentive is ethically justified.
The disadvantages are a net loss of production compared to the current systems
The words “loss of production” are too abstract, so it feels like it is no big deal. But it depends on what specifically it means. Maybe it’s slower internet connection, fewer computer games, and more expensive Coca Cola. Or maybe it’s higher mortality in hospitals, higher retirement age, and more poverty.
I’m saying this because I think people usually only imagine the former, but in real life it’s more likely to be both.
I would be fine with giving unproductive persons incentives so they become productive.
If you give incentives to unproductive people to become productive, but you don’t give incentives to productive people to remain productive, the winning strategy for people is to have swings of productivity.
Generally, whenever you have a cool idea that would work well for the current situation, you should think about how the situation will change when people start adapting to the new rules and optimizing for them. Because sooner or later someone will.
I am aware that very negative consequences are possible, even likely, especially if you go the whole way (aka save everyone at any cost).
My stance is that the current situation is not optimal, and that trying incremental / small scale changes to see whether it makes the situation any better (or worse). Admittedly the ways it could go wrong are multiples.
If you give incentives to unproductive people to become productive, but you don’t give incentives to productive people to remain productive, the winning strategy for people is to have swings of productivity.
If working people can afford more luxury that non-working one, this gives incentive to people starting being productive and staying so. Another incentives that would probably exist (at least in the first generations) is the peer-pressure, not working being low-status.
Generally, whenever you have a cool idea that would work well for the current situation, you should think about how the situation will change when people start adapting to the new rules and optimizing for them. Because sooner or later someone will.
Yeah, impossibility to predict long term evolution is the biggest flaw of basic universal income and the like. But this is true for any significant change. That’s why we should be very careful about policies changes, but immobilsm is not the thing to do (in my opinion).
Again I am not highly confident that my opinion is the good one.
(answer to your other message)
The difference between Sweden (Denmark and France also fit the bill) and eastern European countries is that the former have an extensive welfare system, but apart from that have a capitalist economy while this not the case for the later.
For example France (the one I know the more about), if you are single and have never worked there is a “living wage” of approx 500 euros per month (only if you are more than 25 for some reason), help for housing going from 90 to ~150 euros month. Free healthcare, free public transport. If you have kids you get more help and free education but it is harder to live without working.
On the other side France is a market economy with free trade, very few state monopolies and wealth is owned by the capital.
In the current system people produce goods for their subsistence.
Nope, that would be true in a subsistence economy. You don’t want to live in one :-/
In the current system people produce goods to be exchanged for money which money will be used to buy other goods.
Maybe if you’d give subsistence to everyone (basic income for example) and let people produce in exchange for “more”, the system would still be viable.
And do you have reasons to believe that would be so—besides “maybe”?
It would increase the happiness of the persons concerned
Well, until their toilet clogged and stayed clogged because most plumbers became painters and the rest just went fishing. And until they got sick and found out that the line to see one of the few doctors left is a couple of months. And until the buses stopped running because being a bus mechanic is not such a great job and there are not enough guys who are willing to do it just for fun...
one could perfectly argue that since people not doing anything are harmful to the rest of the society (technically they are taking money from the productive part) so they should be forced to be productive.
Of course. See e.g. the Soviet Union or Mao’s China: being unemployed was a crime. If you can’t find a job, the state has a nice labour camp all ready for you.
I would be fine with giving unproductive persons incentives so they become productive
Maybe if you’d give subsistence to everyone (basic income for example) and let people produce in exchange for “more”, the system would still be viable.
And do you have reasons to believe that would be so—besides “maybe”?
No, that’s why I’d like to see it tried. Nordic countries seems to be headed in that direction, we’ll see how it goes.
Well, until their toilet clogged and stayed clogged because most plumbers became painters and the rest just went fishing. And until they got sick and found out that the line to see one of the few doctors left is a couple of months. And until the buses stopped running because being a bus mechanic is not such a great job and there are not enough guys who are willing to do it just for fun…
One possibility is too find a new equilibrium where the least attractive a job is, the better the advantages for doing it (since people would be ready to pay more to have it done at your place).
I would be fine with giving unproductive persons incentives so they become productive
In money or bullets?
You forgot the second part :
But then you have the question at how much incentive is ethically justified.
This is already how it works. And In a perfect capitalistic society, you have a choice between working or starving (except if someone is willing to help you), this is not much better than bullets.
I would go for less incentives that in our current society personally.
Do you think that trying could have considerable costs? Russia tried communism, that… didn’t turn out well.
One possibility is too find a new equilibrium where the least attractive a job is, the better the advantages for doing
Why new? That’s precisely how the current equilibrium works (where advantages == money).
You forgot the second part
You didn’t answer the question.
And In a perfect capitalistic society, you have a choice between working or starving
Why capitalistic? In your black-and-white picture that would be true for all human societies except for socialist ones. Under capitalism you could at least live off your capital if/when you have some.
I would go for less incentives that in our current society personally.
Do you think that trying could have considerable costs? Russia tried communism, that… didn’t turn out well.
It could, incremental changes, or doing it on a smaller case would mitigate the costs.
A “partial” basic income already exist in several European countries, where even when not contributing to society you are given enough to subsist. The results are not too bad so far.
Why new? That’s precisely how the current equilibrium works (where advantages == money).
You are right, it would just be different jobs having the most value
Why capitalistic? In your black-and-white picture that would be true for all human societies except for socialist ones. Under capitalism you could at least live off your capital if/when you have some.
Is any system where people are automatically given subsistence socialist? Because it is the only thing I have talked about.
You didn’t answer the question.
Money, but with a cost for not being a producer smaller than today (aka no comfort rather than no subsistence)
Is any system where people are automatically given subsistence socialist?
What non-socialist societies which unconditionally provided subsistence to all its members, sufficient to live on, do you know other than a few oil-rich sheikhdoms?
If “not at all” won’t you have issues with e.g. the criminal justice system?
Money is just convenient tokens, you can’t consume money. What you want is value in the form of valuable (that is, desirable) goods and services. Most goods and services disappear when you consume them: if you eat a carrot, that carrot is gone.
When you give out (free) money you generate demand for goods and services. In the context of a capitalist society there is a common assumption that “the market” will automagically generate the supply (that is, actual goods and services) to satisfy the demand. However if you are not in the context of a capitalist society any more, you can’t assume that the supply will be there to meet the demand—see the example of the Soviet Union, etc.
When you redistribute money, people use that money to buy stuff. Someone has to produce the actual stuff and moving money around will not, by itself, lead to actual stuff being produced. If no one is growing carrots, there will be none to be had, free money or no free money.
In the current system people produce goods for their subsistence. Maybe if you’d give subsistence to everyone (basic income for example) and let people produce in exchange for “more”, the system would still be viable.
The advantages are nobody left out, more flexibility in your work, people doing what they like (more artist and stuff), not having to work to survive (that counts for some). It would increase the happiness of the persons concerned The disadvantages are a net loss of production compared to the current systems and the producers of good being worse off. Maybe the trade off is not worth it, I’d like to have it tried just to check.
I am indecisive, even if they are not responsible, criminals are harmful for the rest of the population so imprisonment can be necessary. However the justice system should be focus on rehabilitation rather than punishment.
Your question made me think, coming from that one could perfectly argue that since people not doing anything are harmful to the rest of the society (technically they are taking money from the productive part) so they should be forced to be productive.
Bearing that, I would be fine with giving unproductive persons incentives so they become productive. But then you have the question at how much incentive is ethically justified.
The words “loss of production” are too abstract, so it feels like it is no big deal. But it depends on what specifically it means. Maybe it’s slower internet connection, fewer computer games, and more expensive Coca Cola. Or maybe it’s higher mortality in hospitals, higher retirement age, and more poverty.
I’m saying this because I think people usually only imagine the former, but in real life it’s more likely to be both.
If you give incentives to unproductive people to become productive, but you don’t give incentives to productive people to remain productive, the winning strategy for people is to have swings of productivity.
Generally, whenever you have a cool idea that would work well for the current situation, you should think about how the situation will change when people start adapting to the new rules and optimizing for them. Because sooner or later someone will.
I am aware that very negative consequences are possible, even likely, especially if you go the whole way (aka save everyone at any cost). My stance is that the current situation is not optimal, and that trying incremental / small scale changes to see whether it makes the situation any better (or worse). Admittedly the ways it could go wrong are multiples.
If working people can afford more luxury that non-working one, this gives incentive to people starting being productive and staying so. Another incentives that would probably exist (at least in the first generations) is the peer-pressure, not working being low-status.
Yeah, impossibility to predict long term evolution is the biggest flaw of basic universal income and the like. But this is true for any significant change. That’s why we should be very careful about policies changes, but immobilsm is not the thing to do (in my opinion).
Again I am not highly confident that my opinion is the good one.
(answer to your other message)
The difference between Sweden (Denmark and France also fit the bill) and eastern European countries is that the former have an extensive welfare system, but apart from that have a capitalist economy while this not the case for the later.
For example France (the one I know the more about), if you are single and have never worked there is a “living wage” of approx 500 euros per month (only if you are more than 25 for some reason), help for housing going from 90 to ~150 euros month. Free healthcare, free public transport. If you have kids you get more help and free education but it is harder to live without working.
On the other side France is a market economy with free trade, very few state monopolies and wealth is owned by the capital.
Nope, that would be true in a subsistence economy. You don’t want to live in one :-/
In the current system people produce goods to be exchanged for money which money will be used to buy other goods.
And do you have reasons to believe that would be so—besides “maybe”?
Well, until their toilet clogged and stayed clogged because most plumbers became painters and the rest just went fishing. And until they got sick and found out that the line to see one of the few doctors left is a couple of months. And until the buses stopped running because being a bus mechanic is not such a great job and there are not enough guys who are willing to do it just for fun...
Of course. See e.g. the Soviet Union or Mao’s China: being unemployed was a crime. If you can’t find a job, the state has a nice labour camp all ready for you.
In money or bullets?
No, that’s why I’d like to see it tried. Nordic countries seems to be headed in that direction, we’ll see how it goes.
One possibility is too find a new equilibrium where the least attractive a job is, the better the advantages for doing it (since people would be ready to pay more to have it done at your place).
You forgot the second part :
This is already how it works. And In a perfect capitalistic society, you have a choice between working or starving (except if someone is willing to help you), this is not much better than bullets.
I would go for less incentives that in our current society personally.
Do you think that trying could have considerable costs? Russia tried communism, that… didn’t turn out well.
Why new? That’s precisely how the current equilibrium works (where advantages == money).
You didn’t answer the question.
Why capitalistic? In your black-and-white picture that would be true for all human societies except for socialist ones. Under capitalism you could at least live off your capital if/when you have some.
So why would anyone come to unclog your toilet?
It could, incremental changes, or doing it on a smaller case would mitigate the costs. A “partial” basic income already exist in several European countries, where even when not contributing to society you are given enough to subsist. The results are not too bad so far.
You are right, it would just be different jobs having the most value
Is any system where people are automatically given subsistence socialist? Because it is the only thing I have talked about.
Money, but with a cost for not being a producer smaller than today (aka no comfort rather than no subsistence)
For money, same as today
What non-socialist societies which unconditionally provided subsistence to all its members, sufficient to live on, do you know other than a few oil-rich sheikhdoms?