I wonder what we'd all pay to have garbage hauled away if we didn't have a ready supply of ex-convicts for whom this was one of the higher paying jobs available to them?
That's a really good question. There are all manner of dirty jobs that people only do because they have no other option except starve or steal. How that differs qualitatively from slavery is beyond me, but I do get the feeling that we aren't paying the "real price" for these services simply because we have plenty of ex-cons in the U.S. and seem happy to keep making more.
But aside from that issue, I think a basic income is the only truly fair way to operate a fiat currency. We know a few things for sure, and one of them seems to be that a small amount of inflation is good for an economy.
One way to inflate is to print money, and the way we do distribute "new money" in the form of debt is essentially a regressive tax. Much fairer would be to give everyone the same amount in cash form.
This system would be so simple it would prevent a lot of the abuses and favoritism of the current system. Imagine if the inflation rate were fixed; say a 2-3% increase in money supply each year, guaranteed, distributed equally among all citizens. It's really hard to game a system like that.
And that's probably also why it's not being seriously discussed in political circles. What's the advantage to politicians?
Forget "capitalists," this kind of thing is the worst nightmare for everyone who is currently a winner in the current system. If I were to propose to devalue EVERYONE's wealth by 2-3% a year so that I can distribute an equal amount to everyone, I could expect a huge fight from anyone with any accumulated wealth.
But as for me, I can't think of a more fair and humane way to operate a system of money.
People would still do those dirty jobs, those jobs would just have to over a higher overall payout then just BI. Services that are largly based on low skilled laber would probebly be more expensive.
> But aside from that issue, I think a basic income is the only truly fair way to operate a fiat currency. We know a few things for sure, and one of them seems to be that a small amount of inflation is good for an economy.
It is not clear that a small amount of inflation is good for the economy. Also alternative montary transiation mechanism are not really unfair in any meaningful way. Also inflation is driven by expected montary growth, if the central bank has a credible target the would have to do very little or nothing to reach that goal.
You can not fiance any goverment programm by montary expention. Exept when you increase the speed of expantion but thats a bad idea.
Also giving money directly to people as a montary mechanism has a huge flaw, if you overshoot your targed you can not go back easly. The Central Bank buys and sells bonds/stocks instead of dropping money from airplanes because the must have a way to get money out of the system again. You could of course do that by equally taking from everybody bank account but that is not something goverment should have the power to do.
Also having 2/3% inflation does absolutly not mean that everybodys wealth is now 2/3% less.
I would really, really suggest to to first understand some montary theory befor you come up with your own montary system, its harder then you might think.
I'm not suggesting the government's sole function is to print and hand out money and call it a day. There are other methods of taxation and spending (income tax over basic income amount, or directly spending money on infrastructure, for example) that could reign in an overly inflationary economy.
The current method of injection of money into the economy via debt is broken, benefits mostly banks, and requires that a percentage of people continually go bankrupt due to lack of available cash in the future.
Basic income is an alternative means of monetary expansion that would fix this.
Not that you have to inflate with basic income, you could simply redistribute wealth. But that requires people decide who takes how much from whom, and is ripe for favoritism. Inflating via basic income is the most egalitarian method I can think of.
> The current method of injection of money into the economy via debt is broken, benefits mostly banks, and requires that a percentage of people continually go bankrupt due to lack of available cash in the future.
Sorry where did you come up with this? The CB can buy any asset with newly created money, this includes bonds. How does this in any way require a percentage of people going bankrupt?
If you really belive that the amount of cash in the economy is bound to goverment dept and that leads to a lack of cash I would strongly suggest you pick up a book on montary theory because that makes absolutly no sence.
> Basic income is an alternative means of monetary expansion that would fix this.
Have you even read what I wrote?
> Not that you have to inflate with basic income, you could simply redistribute wealth. But that requires people decide who takes how much from whom, and is ripe for favoritism. Inflating via basic income is the most egalitarian method I can think of.
Again. Have you actually read why montary transmission is not done in a direct the people way? Its not like you came up with something new, the idea was around but its simply not workable because its a one way transmission. Its like you are saying that if a ship has to turn to the left its okay to have steering wheel that can never steer to the right. What happens if you steere to the left to much for a time, what if you have strong current from the right (witch in this analogy would mean for example a change in money demand).
If you really want BI, and to it in a natural way. Make one basic tax, flat or prgressiv does not really matter as long as it is one clear function and stop any exeption people can take (alternative is a consumtion tax that applies equally to everything), and set a number of BI you want to pay out.
Montary policy should just be conducted in the usual way to hit its target, your big error is to assume that if the central bank has a 2% inflation target it has to print money, look at australia they have relativly high inflation but the montary base is very low. The market ajusts to your target and if you have a credible target you dont actually have to print any money.
In reality garbage men make more money than any basic income would pay. The misconception is that a BI would cause no one to work because they were too busy driving ferrais and eating cuisine with their government money. But we're talking about a basic income here. Any job that pays more than the minimum will make someone seem wealthy when compared to the average person. Any one with a job, even a janitor, would have more money to throw around than most people.
Ex-cons in particular will be in a much better situation as far as we're concerned. There's no constant stress of being expected to find a job in a society that doesn't want to hire them. More importantly, there's less incentive to steal from one of us if criminals have an easy backup plan. People won't have to fake disability or become welfare mothers either, saving society a lot of money.
There are always unintended consequences, but 100% of them aren't bad. A BI will save a lot of money just by eliminating some of the perverse incentives of the current system. It won't necessarily destroy the work incentive either. As the OP pointed out, we'd get a situation where the only people who apply for a job are people who really want them. A government income doesn't destroy natural talent, interest or ability. We could end up putting ourselves into a situation where jobs are things people enjoy moreso than we do today.
One only need look at Germany to refute the strange claim that a basic income would cause nobody to work. It is basically impossible to fall out of the lowest bracket of the German welfare system (~€350/mo for a childless single person, higher if you have kids), and yet Germany has high labor-force participation.
There is probably some level of income at which it would be true. If Germans got €5,000/mo, labor-force participation might be lower. But that is not what people are advocating.
Garbage pickup is one of the many jobs that will probably be obseleted by self-driving trucks. So, at least in the medium-term future, we'll likely pay less than we currently do.
