An Experiment with Guaranteed Income

[DA60]

Sure you do. Slaveholders said they understood their slaves.

Lol.

What a ridiculous comment.

You do not know me and have virtually no idea about my past. Yet you are presupposing to correct me what it was like?

:roll:

What's next, you will go to a maternity ward and tell new mothers what child birth felt like? Go to the palliative care ward and call them all fakers? Tell WW2 vets what it was really like 'back then'?

If you are going to call someone a liar, don't be so stupid as to have zero proof to back it up. Don't believe me - fine. But don't be so childish as to call someone a flat out liar without a scrap of proof...that is just childish. And I don't debate with childish people - waste of time.

Welcome to my ignore list.


Have a nice day.

 

[Jack Hays]

Lol.

What an asinine comment.

You do not know me and have no idea about my past. Yet you are presupposing to tell me what it was like?

:roll:

What's next, you will go to a maternity ward and tell new mothers what child birth felt like? Go to the palliative care ward and call them all fakers? Tell WW2 vets what it was really like 'back then'?

If you are going to call someone a liar, don't be so stupid as to have zero proof to back it up.

Welcome to my ignore list.


Have a nice day.

I merely respond to your posts. The OP provided data that poor people do not act as you claim. You answered with prejudice. QED

 

[ludin]

I merely respond to your posts. The OP provided data that poor people do not act as you claim. You answered with prejudice. QED

To be honest with you most people are "poor" due to lack of money management.
It won't matter how much money you want to give them they will still be "poor".

while I don't like the current system it at least hopefully goes to the people that need it.
so far no one has said how this system will be paid for.

there are currently 330m people living in the US.

 

[Jack Hays]

To be honest with you most people are "poor" due to lack of money management.
It won't matter how much money you want to give them they will still be "poor".

while I don't like the current system it at least hopefully goes to the people that need it.
so far no one has said how this system will be paid for.

there are currently 330m people living in the US.

The OP cites research results that suggest poor people actually do well with money. in my own remarks I suggested funding the payments by eliminating other entitlement spending.

 

[Mycroft]

Just because you are incapable of understanding something doesn't make it gobbledygook. This is the all-too-common conservative position - I don't understand it, so it must not be true. Deficit spending, global warming, evolution, etc. It must make your brain hurt.

LOL!!

So...you are reduced to disparaging my intelligence because I don't blindly fall for your blather. I'd say that's a big fail on your part, but hey...it's your problem.

In any case, I don't call your stuff gobble-de-gook because I cannot understand what you are saying...just the opposite, in fact. I perfectly understand your blather for what it is: Your attempt to spin and misrepresent facts and reality so it fits your personal agenda.

This is a typical liberal tactic, you know. We see it used in global warming, as well. It's unfortunate...for you...that not all that many people fall for your gobble-de-gook.

 

[JohnfrmClevelan]

LOL!!

So...you are reduced to disparaging my intelligence because I don't blindly fall for your blather. I'd say that's a big fail on your part, but hey...it's your problem.

No, I'm disparaging your intelligence because you are unable to make an economic argument to counter my economic argument. You are participating in an economic debate forum without understanding the subject. You declared yourself correct without being able to explain why you think so.

 

[csbrown28]

And that is why you and a few others are way behind the 8-ball on this issue.

Most people...and, thankfully, most of our politicians...understand that an answer such as your's amounts to insubstantial weasel words that can be used to justify increased spending on any flavor-of-the-day pet agenda item...such as this thread's topic: Guaranteed minimum income.

Most people and most politicians will readily understand that such runaway spending...even for such a dubious program...is unsustainable and would reject it out of hand.

And yet, besides claiming you are correct, not only have you failed to make a cogent argument, you haven't even demonstrated that you understand mine.

 

[Mycroft]

No, I'm disparaging your intelligence because you are unable to make an economic argument to counter my economic argument. You are participating in an economic debate forum without understanding the subject. You declared yourself correct without being able to explain why you think so.

And yet, when I say anything...you know, answer your questions...you don't dispute me. You just ask more questions that have nothing to do with anything I've said. In other words, you make no "economic argument". You spout off with blather and, if anyone disputes you, you just spout off with more blather.

Seems to me that it's YOU who is in the wrong forum. You shouldn't be in the economics forum...you should be in some alternate reality forum where you can find others who will accept your gobble-de-gook.

 

[Mycroft]

And yet, besides claiming you are correct, not only have you failed to make a cogent argument, you haven't even demonstrated that you understand mine.

You haven't made any argument. You've only spouted off with weasel words that have no real meaning. I've already seen through them and responded to them.

But tell me...do you REALLY think anybody would EVER condone such runaway spending for something like "guaranteed minimum income"? I mean...really? That is, of course, anyone but you and your powerless, inconsequential ilk? If you do, I'd say you live in a fantasy world.

 

[csbrown28]

You haven't made any argument. You've only spouted off with weasel words that have no real meaning. I've already seen through them and responded to them.

But tell me...do you REALLY think anybody would EVER condone such runaway spending for something like "guaranteed minimum income"? I mean...really? That is, of course, anyone but you and your powerless, inconsequential ilk? If you do, I'd say you live in a fantasy world.

Honestly, I'd prefer a jobs guarantee for those capable of work over BIG, but I admit there are pros and cons to both.

The truth is, JG and BIG is putting the cart before the horse. In order to choose between them, you really have to understand the claims being made with regard to MMT. With all due respect, I don't think you understand the position that most MMT'ers actually hold.

To your point, no I have't laid out how I think MMT works.....There are plenty of people that have already done that.

I don't usually respond with links, but if you really want to have an intelligent discussion, I'll direct you here:

Linky to video

I was going to post an in depth site on how MMT works (and I still may, but one step at a time), but I suspected you wouldn't read it, so the former is a 2.5 min video. Watch it and see if you can identify something in error and let's discuss.

-Cheers

 

[ludin]

The OP cites research results that suggest poor people actually do well with money. in my own remarks I suggested funding the payments by eliminating other entitlement spending.

that doesn't cover 330m people.
current spending would only be 7k a year. you are talking about 20k.
if you only give it to people that are currently on the system it is still more than what we spend now.

 

[ludin]

Honestly, I'd prefer a jobs guarantee for those capable of work over BIG, but I admit there are pros and cons to both.

The truth is, JG and BIG is putting the cart before the horse. In order to choose between them, you really have to understand the claims being made with regard to MMT. With all due respect, I don't think you understand the position that most MMT'ers actually hold.

To your point, no I have't laid out how I think MMT works.....There are plenty of people that have already done that.

I don't usually respond with links, but if you really want to have an intelligent discussion, I'll direct you here:

Linky to video

I was going to post an in depth site on how MMT works (and I still may, but one step at a time), but I suspected you wouldn't read it, so the former is a 2.5 min video. Watch it and see if you can identify something in error and let's discuss.

-Cheers

people who buy into MMT don't understand what they are talking about.
you can't print money willy nilly without having consequences.

the biggest 2 being inflation and devaluation of currency.
they only way that money can be added into the system is if there
is demand.

printing money to give to people doesn't do that. you flood the market with un-needed currency that hurt
everyone.

I really wish people would drop this nonsense. there are reasons that even the Fed's themselves don't adhere to this.

 

[JohnfrmClevelan]

people who buy into MMT don't understand what they are talking about.
you can't print money willy nilly without having consequences.

the biggest 2 being inflation and devaluation of currency.
they only way that money can be added into the system is if there
is demand.

printing money to give to people doesn't do that. you flood the market with un-needed currency that hurt
everyone.

I really wish people would drop this nonsense. there are reasons that even the Fed's themselves don't adhere to this.

You can't legitimately criticize something that you don't understand, and you obviously don't understand MMT.

MMT does not propose "willy-nilly" deficit spending. We propose very purposeful deficit spending, aimed at employing everybody. That is money well-spent, and that does not cause inflation.

 

[ludin]

You can't legitimately criticize something that you don't understand, and you obviously don't understand MMT.

MMT does not propose "willy-nilly" deficit spending. We propose very purposeful deficit spending, aimed at employing everybody. That is money well-spent, and that does not cause inflation.

sure it does.
you have money without the need or demand for it in the economy.

if everyone has 20k a year then prices will adjust up for that.
people will just charge more because they can.

you will pay because you have to.

don't believe me look at silicon valley right now.

the tech industry has priced most people out of the business. why? because the people working in the tech business
are making mega bucks and housing costs have overly inflated because they can.

you want to print money for no reason that is the result.
you guys just don't get or understand what you propose or the consequences.

the value of the dollar is the peoples trust in the US government to manage it wisely.
you start just printing money it becomes worthless as people don't value it anymore.

again there is a reason that the fed and the treasury don't even follow this.

 

[Lafayette]

The underlying assumption was that the poor weren’t good at making decisions for themselves: Experts had to make the decisions for them. As it turns out, that assumption was wrong. Across many contexts and continents, experimental tests show that the poor don’t stop trying when they are given money, and they don’t get drunk. Instead, they make productive use of the funds, feeding their families, sending their children to school, and investing in businesses and their own futures.

Thanks for a repeating a simple aspect of human lives - that regardless of the circumstance, people try to pick themselves up from adversity and "make a go of it".

So, whatever the cost of that "helping hand", it's worth it in a nation as rich as ours. Poverty is not a forever condition unless we allow it to happen in that manner.

Which is what we have done with a Minimum Wage that cannot even support a minimal existence for a family ...

It was that sort of ideology that led the Nazis to "experiment"

 

[Lafayette]

. But there is massive resistance to this innovation from public bureaucracy employees and their unions, as the greatest number of their jobs would go.

Why?!?

Oupps! The Civil Service Wage Structure
The Poverty Threshold (for a family of four) is $23K per year.

Reached at a GS Grade Level of "3"! One must presume these people are living at home with Mom 'n Dad?

Amazing ... but so what? Sustaining life depends upon at what level our minimum lay-outs are. As described in Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs:

Level 1 is the most important and is the one that should be guaranteed to all humans by the nation in which they live. As is the base from which they aspire to the higher levels.

To not do so in indecent and cruel ...

 

[JohnfrmClevelan]

sure it does.
you have money without the need or demand for it in the economy.

if everyone has 20k a year then prices will adjust up for that.
people will just charge more because they can.

So with all that extra demand, you don't think that businesses will simply produce more stuff to buy? If one store was stupid enough to raise their prices, the store down the street will keep their prices the same and run their competitor out of business. That is why we always say that as long as the economy can meet the new demand, deficit spending won't cause inflation.

You aren't thinking through this.

you will pay because you have to.

don't believe me look at silicon valley right now.

the tech industry has priced most people out of the business. why? because the people working in the tech business
are making mega bucks and housing costs have overly inflated because they can.

Real estate is a limited item. There is only so much land in Silicon Valley, and there is only so much land in Manhattan. Prices are going to be high no matter what people are paid.

again there is a reason that the fed and the treasury don't even follow this.

Yes. Because the Fed and the Treasury don't control government spending. Dur.

 

[joG]

Why?!?

Oupps! The Civil Service Wage Structure
The Poverty Threshold (for a family of four) is $23K per year.

Reached at a GS Grade Level of "3"! One must presume these people are living at home with Mom 'n Dad?

Amazing ... but so what? Sustaining life depends upon at what level our minimum lay-outs are. As described in Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs:

Level 1 is the most important and is the one that should be guaranteed to all humans by the nation in which they live. As is the base from which they aspire to the higher levels.

To not do so in indecent and cruel ...

Then it only seems fair to let them work in the free market.

 

[Lafayette]

Then it only seems fair to let them work in the free market.

The notion of a "free market" is asinine. There is no such thing, and it has never existed except maybe before money was invented.

What has existed is Communism where the market-economy was determined by the state. It was nonetheless "free" - the Russians voted continuously to keep it because they foolishly thought they could make it work. Until it proved unworkable, so they dumped it in 1991. Ditto China.

What also existed contemporaneously was a market-economy in which government intervention was largely reduced, but it is not "free". Any Treasurer in any market-economy can intervene in order to prevent market collapse of the currency. Government intervention is therefore never "completely hands off" in a supposedly "free-market", as you wrongly attribute that of the US.

All markets follow regulations set by governments; and when they don't what happens is often the worst outcome. For instance, Banksters perpetrate a Toxic Waste Fraud that brings down the "free-market" about our ears. Thus provoking a Great Recession that puts millions out of work in the US.

If that's your "Free Market", then you can have it - do take it with you when you leave ...

 

[Lafayette]

...they only way that money can be added into the system is if there is demand.

Not entirely true.

Quantitative Easing (QE) took bad debt of bank-books, so banks increased their "capital" up to established limits (that had previously been exhausted). Which allowed them more money-reserves and the ability to lend more. (The intent being to financially stimulate the economy.)

What QE failed to understand is that if there is a major recession going on, all the available money in the world is not going to entice people into debt-borrowing if they think their jobs are in peril. The only tried-'n-true means of jump-starting an economy is Stimulus-Spending funded out of national treasuries. (I.e., "printing money", if necessary.)

 

[joG]

The notion of a "free market" is asinine. There is no such thing, and it has never existed except maybe before money was invented.

What has existed is Communism where the market-economy was determined by the state. It was nonetheless "free" - the Russians voted continuously to keep it because they foolishly thought they could make it work. Until it proved unworkable, so they dumped it in 1991. Ditto China.

What also existed contemporaneously was a market-economy in which government intervention was largely reduced, but it is not "free". Any Treasurer in any market-economy can intervene in order to prevent market collapse of the currency. Government intervention is therefore never "completely hands off" in a supposedly "free-market", as you wrongly attribute that of the US.

All markets follow regulations set by governments; and when they don't what happens is often the worst outcome. For instance, Banksters perpetrate a Toxic Waste Fraud that brings down the "free-market" about our ears. Thus provoking a Great Recession that puts millions out of work in the US.

If that's your "Free Market", then you can have it - do take it with you when you leave ...

I actually used the word free to see how you would react. You see many economists use that word well knowing that markets are regulated. As a matter of fact, they cannot function without regulations and protection. That is why savvy folks use the word to describe a family of models that adhere to certain rules.
Oh, yes. I know, what a family is.

 

[Lafayette]

You see many economists use that word well knowing that markets are regulated. As a matter of fact, they cannot function without regulations and protection.

The question is not so much whether a market is free or not. A free market means free-entry, not freedom to do whatever one likes.

And the US market is one of the easiest to enter (and exit). But, it is not a market-economy that is "fair".

The first and foremost objective of any market-economy is profits. Nothing wrong with that, it's a fine metric.

What's wrong is the warped way profits become Income and then distributed to a select group - a sort of Mafia at the top. Which then, subject to an abjectly low higher-income taxation, becomes Wealth - and finally Net Worth.

That's where Uncle Sam got it all wrong, wrong, wrong. Unfair taxation is the sole and unique reason that Income Disparity is rampant in America ...

 

[joG]

The question is not so much whether a market is free or not. A free market means free-entry, not freedom to do whatever one likes.

And the US market is one of the easiest to enter (and exit). But, it is not a market-economy that is "fair".

The first and foremost objective of any market-economy is profits. Nothing wrong with that, it's a fine metric.

What's wrong is the warped way profits become Income and then distributed to a select group - a sort of Mafia at the top. Which then, subject to an abjectly low higher-income taxation, becomes Wealth - and finally Net Worth.

That's where Uncle Sam got it all wrong, wrong, wrong. Unfair taxation is the sole and unique reason that Income Disparity is rampant in America ...

Why should income disparity be so awful? Or net worth? If the income is from efficiently allocating resources that seems good. And if someone was successful before, there is a higher probability she will be again. That in turn increases the probability of the economy growing and becoming stronger.

Personally, I believe you mean something else.

 

[csbrown28]

people who buy into MMT don't understand what they are talking about.
you can't print money willy nilly without having consequences.

Definitive proof you don't understand MMT and my understanding of it.

the biggest 2 being inflation and devaluation of currency.
they only way that money can be added into the system is if there
is demand.

If the government creates enough money to do $500b in repairs to the nations infrustructure, would that count as demand?

printing money to give to people doesn't do that. you flood the market with un-needed currency that hurt
everyone.

It can, the question is, do you really understand the variables that would make your fear materialize?

 

[Mycroft]

Honestly, I'd prefer a jobs guarantee for those capable of work over BIG, but I admit there are pros and cons to both.

The truth is, JG and BIG is putting the cart before the horse. In order to choose between them, you really have to understand the claims being made with regard to MMT. With all due respect, I don't think you understand the position that most MMT'ers actually hold.

To your point, no I have't laid out how I think MMT works.....There are plenty of people that have already done that.

I don't usually respond with links, but if you really want to have an intelligent discussion, I'll direct you here:

Linky to video

I was going to post an in depth site on how MMT works (and I still may, but one step at a time), but I suspected you wouldn't read it, so the former is a 2.5 min video. Watch it and see if you can identify something in error and let's discuss.

-Cheers

Start a thread about MMT. Post your video link there. I'll watch it.

Whether you consider guaranteed income as putting the cart before the horse or not, that is...in fact...the topic of this thread. You should stick to it.