You are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

0
0

[–] analfaveto ago  (edited ago)

We already have a universal basic income; it's called unemployment benefits. Should unemployment benefits be higher? Perhaps. The real problem is the way the unemployment benefits are structured. As soon as you get a job, you lose your dole money, which doesn't really give people an incentive to get a job, especially if it's a low-wage one. If I'm getting £50 a week for doing bugger all, I'm not going to get a part-time job unloading lorries for £60 a week, am I? That would be stupid. The solution was given a very long time ago by Milton Friedman, with the negative income tax, but nobody has had the sense to implement it. With the negative income tax, you would get £60 a week for your work, but because your income is below the threshold of x, you get an additional (x-60)*y a week (with y < 1, obviously). That would provide you with a basic income AND give you the incentive to work.

Your second paragraph is nonsense, especially the last sentence. In an economy where transactions are voluntary, it's impossible for a company to make a profit without creating wealth. Even casinos create wealth. If an individual puts money on red on the roulette knowing the expected value of his return is negative, it's only because he values the possibility of earning some free money more than the prospect of losing the same amount with a slightly higher probability. He may regret his actions later, but that's irrelevant. Call it excitement. Call it entertainment. Call it what you want. If people are willing to pay for it, it has value.

0
0

[–] lipids ago 

Its easy to make money without creating wealth. There is even a term for it: rent seeking. When a company makes a low value product but receives a subsidy to do so, it can destroy wealth. An example is low wage jobs where the worker gets their wages supplemented by welfare programs. Which wouldn't itself be bad if the programs didn't require work. Either make the aid nonconditional like your aforementioned NIT, or force these companies to pay a living wage.

Welfare programs are structured a bit differently here in the states so that may be the source of our misunderstanding.

0
0

[–] analfaveto ago 

I was assuming a free, competitive market, but in any case, corporate welfare -- which I'm totally against -- doesn't destroy wealth. It only transfers it from the taxpayer to the shareholder. If we follow your reasoning, unemployment benefits -- or universal basic income, if you prefer to call it that way -- also destroy wealth.