Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Strategies & Market Trends : The Epic American Credit and Bond Bubble Laboratory -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: orkrious who wrote (87434)	10/8/2007 7:54:47 PM
From: John Metcalf	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 110194

Ork, I have the same immediate reaction to an income guarantee. Some may not remember that a guaranteed national income was a hot new idea in the 1960's. It was championed by Milton Friedman, certainly not a liberal. In the late sixties, this idea had gained enough attention to be the national college debate topic. In college on a debate scholarship, I spoke fer and agin it. Freidman's point was that administration of social programs is expensive. All those gubmint jobs could be eliminated if we simply introduced a "negative income tax", in which money would be sent to those who didn't earn enough, cutting out the social-worker middle man. I have problems with the implementation of this idea, but it was conservative in origin, is partially paid for by the elimination of administrative jobs, and was thought to be a low-cost alternative to the welfare we already pay for. My personal view is that demographics have changed too much for this idea to merit serious consideration.

To: orkrious who wrote (87434)	10/8/2007 8:30:02 PM
From: glenn_a	Respond to of 110194

Hi Ork. I don't actually think a guaranted basic subsistence income is a bad idea, but only as a very basic form of poverty relief. And it doesn't have to be "income" per se, it can come in other forms such as food stamps, subsidized services, etc. At the same time, I don't view this as a "basic right", but rather as a privilege that a society aspires to provide its least fortunate. Now, guaranteeing every working age person a base salary of $30,000/year is another thing entirely, and I don't think that's a good idea at all. I hope this is what Cook means by his comment an "income guarantee, not tied to employment" - that is, a basic level of subsistence income, which should be below the minimum wage IMO. Perhaps it's my more Canadian socialist-ist-like background, but I don't believe Government is simply a source of waste and bureaucracy. OTOH, I'm open to be convinced otherwise. It's just I see valuable government services provided in Canada by the Government - not primarily run for the interests of profit, but for providing a social service - and I would prefer this system to a pure "for profit" enterprise. Basic social services like health care, child welfare services, etc. fall into this category. OTOH, I do feel that the vast majority of enterprises are better off in the private sector, providing that they are regulated. Anyway, I'm sure the topic of government-provided services is a hot one. But I do agree that a guaranteed basic income for all but the most basic living necessities is probably not a good idea. Regards, Glenn