Switzerland and "Star Trek" economics: $2,800 a month for everyone?

If they'll lose the means to cover basic needs at the same time, then yes, that's exactly what's meant by being reduced to subsistence. The context in Marx' argument is under which conditions a person cannot negotiate freely with those who want to buy their labour.

But again, and much more importantly, "Western economies" is a misnomer. Economies don't stop at borders, and today, they don't have to stop at any geographical distance either. When you want to describe how workers in your economy live, you can't point to people living in the United States, because only a tiny fraction of them live there.

I think others have dealt with the second claim. You're either utterly wrong, or your definition is so far removed from my own that the disagreement expressed here hardly means anything. (Though I would like to know by what insanity the Heritage Foundation affords Russia less economic freedom than Germany.)

As for the first claim, again, your economy doesn't end with the rich Western countries.

It kinda does when two thirds of all humans live in "exceptions".

...for some.

Yep, that's one of the failed predictions I see as well. Of course, those weren't actual dictatorships of the proletariat because there was no proletariat, so I guess you could argue that those states' failures remove the contradiction.

Yes, definitely. Most of the wars currently being fought are between states that own the planet and states that do labour.

OK, now we're moving on to a different subject. I was talking about predictions. In Marx' terms, this doesn't qualify as a contradiction, both because he predicted horrors and misery for the dictatorship of the proletariat, and because he wouldn't accept the "Communist" states we've had as such anyway, as you just rightly emphasized.

Did I ever say it would? As I already said, it was an extreme, you know a hypothetical where you take things to the limit. Whether or not it is likely to happen does nothing to change the fact that such an undesirable situation would be worse off for most people and the economy overall, regardless of the fact it is free of government interference and a government free market.

I find political fundamentalists on any side to generally hold silly positions. Far right or far left, don't you think it's a mighty strange coincidence that the positions you think are morally best and preferable also happen to be the ones that you think would always give the best real world outcomes? Sometimes free markets give the best outcomes, sometimes government intervention is needed, the best results come from balancing the two.

It seems axiomatic to me that the level of state intervention in the economy is defined by the levels of taxation and spending. If you have a better measure let's hear it.

Give me an example of spending that is not.

We can talk about concepts of freedom if you like, but if you want to claim that that's the same thing as what you were talking about, it's up to you to demonstrate it first.

Right, because I'm going to take a map using '2013' data yet fails to mark the existence of South Sudan seriously. I question the credibility of your source, Paladin.

Yeah, it's fairly obvious that town B was worse off than town A, Wall*Mart played them against each other. Sure, town B, which had nothing at all gets a short term bump while town A crashes and burns. Then what? The customer base begins to dwindle and town B starts to follow A, as all of the money that was once in the two communities leaves for the enrichment of Walton's kids.

Wal*Mart distorts the market to such extent in small towns, that it renders the concept meaningless.

Prices rise, but it depends who you are talking about them rising for and to what extent.

When I was 20, I went on the dole in Winnipeg for a few months.
Part of the set up there was that they paid the landlord directly, which made it that much more certain for landlords to get their rent.
The maximum shelter allowance back then was around $225. Guess what the majority of rooms cost? Not surprisingly, 1 bedroom apartments tended to be $450/month.
A guaranteed income is a great idea, but meaningless without price caps. All it turns into is a bunch of nearly free money for real estate owners.

Wal*Mart is dangerous. Back when I was in college, one of my Economics Professors was a former Executive VP of Wal*Mart that left after Sam Walton passed away. He didn't like the direction the kids were taking the company. For instance, contracts meant nothing to them.

I've seen it with my own eyes. It's fairly standard practice to negotiate a 1-3% discount if you pay within a short, pre-determined, time frame. Wal*Mart routinely negotiated a 2% discount if they paid their suppliers within 30 days of invoice. The thing is, Wal*Mart would take between 90-180 days to pay and still subtract their 2%. They'd tell the suppliers that if they didn't like it, they'd just buy x from somewhere else. Since most suppliers would be devastated to lose Wal*Mart as a customer, they took what they could get.

Now, yeah, we're talking about 2% here, but it's the principle of the matter. Wal*Mart is not acting in good faith and they're in a race to the bottom on the ethical side of business. Dealing with them should be discouraged at every opportunity until they change their business model.

That's a great example Elwood.

I see government regulation and minimum standards as somewhat paradoxically being a neccessity to keep free capitalist markets of the type we encourage. From the legal standpoint there Walmart is actually doing everything right, and they would be doing badly by their stockholders if they didn't seize every opportunity to make some extra cash.

I disagree. They're clearly in the wrong. In breach of contract, even. I dare say they're committing fraud because they're presenting themselves as acting in one way and then actually acting in another. The catch is, the "victim" of the fraud doesn't want to seek legal recourse because it would effect their larger bottom line.

It's possible to be a free market capitalist and act ethically and in your self-interest at the same time.

Intervention is overriding the choices of free actors in the marketplace. The government buying goods and services in the marketplace makes them another customer.

Is taxation affecting the marketplace? Sure. But two countries with equal levels of taxation can be very different in how decisions are made in the marketplace. One can be free, the other unfree.

Or, to put it another way...

The government may consume X% of what is produced in the marketplace but that says NOTHING about whether the government DICTATES what is produced, or what individuals may CHOOSE to do in the marketplace.

Then "living in subsistence" really means "not independently wealthy."

Every person is free to negotiate now. Their "needs" don't make unfree. Everyone has needs. If everyone were free of needs, there would be no "need" to work.

Have absolutely failed to show how it is wrong.

Here's their summary for Russia, tell me which parts you take exception with:

Russia scores very low ("unfree") marks in four of categories: Investment Freedom, Financial Freedom, Property Rights, and Freedom from Corruption. The belief that Russia is some kind of laissez-faire exemplar is completely unsupported by the FACTS. For comparison's sake, here's Germany's summary:

Germany scored "free" or "mostly free" in most of the categories, getting "unfree" scores in Labor Freedom and Government Spending. Do you REALLY believe there is less economic freedom in Germany than in Russia?

Yes, definitely. Most of the wars currently being fought are between states that own the planet and states that do labour.[/quote]
Really? Then China should be at war with everybody. Which wars are we talking about?

In capitalism, that's what it means, "independent" refering to "independent of having a job". Which is why capitalism is the system in which worker=subsistence, or as you put it despite your unncessary hyperbole:

See? Now you've got it.

The only two substantial claims in there are government as an actor on the market, and corruption. The former you've just declared to be compatible with economic freedom a few posts up. The latter doens't infringe on economic freedoms; an official still can only do what an official in that system can do. That his motives are driven by corruption don't make his intervention any more an intervention than if he was driven by democratic elections.

Again, I'm not saying Russia is a good place, or even a good place for business. On the contrary: I'm saying it's a very bad place despite its economic freedom, showing that economic freedom is no virtue in itself and does ot lead to prosperity or to other freedoms.

Absolutely. Universal healthcare, universal social welfare, public schools through age 26 and the best universities, a tax system that positively prohibits small enterprise by its mere bureaucracy, extsnive regulations from environmental protection through health regulations and labour regulations right down to good old-school mercantilism.

That the rule of those laws creating their own artifical market is well-maintained and implemented with little corruption doesn't change the fact that the laws do what they do.

China is not a classical capitalist country. Name one war the US is currently engaged in that doesn't pitch capitalists against workers.

So how do you sing "I owe my soul to the company store" like in the Sixteen Tons song in Spanish?

I've actually mentioned Basic Minimum Income here before. Time was I was against it, but a bit of calculation brought me round.

But first off, Switzerland is hardly the first place to try this - Alaska actually has a much smaller version (you couldn't live off it), and it was tested in Namibia where it saw crime drop and economic activity increase.

From a minarchal standpoint, such a system allows for a reduction in government (yay!) by seeing the end of most of the benefits system and thus shrinking government and bureaucracy.

It also allows for the removal of the minimum wage, which - so long as the UBI is provided to a nations citizens only - provides them with an advantage over immigrants with wages.

It'd provide a platform for apprenticeships and increase skill levels of a nation.

It's also a necessity in a society where there are more significantly more people than jobs, and we're pretty much at the start of that process now.

There are some examples of it not working so well (eg gaming distributions in Indian tribes). But I do think the day is coming where we will need a solution for economically viable part time work.

When it comes down to it, it's just a simplification of the welfare system though, isn't it?

And that accepted, while it drastically reduces the bureaucracy, one could argue that it doesn't target the money as well. You end up with people who don't need it getting it, and people who need more not getting enough.

No. It is more akin to a reverse income tax - a 'prebate.'

Well, since it's not accepted...

Means testing is a crap way of doing things, tends to end costing more than it saves and you end with situations like the current ATOS debacle.

And if we're looking for outcomes over ideology, universality saves whole layers of government getting involved. Just look at how Brown totally gamed the system to massive cost to the nation in an attempt to buy votes.

Besides impact on prices, I'd want to see cost figures. If you get rid of a welfare system that provides a fairly small amount of money to a portion of the population and replace it with a system that gives a whole lot more to everybody, it's going to cost more, even with administrative overhead decreasing. So what kind of taxation on other incomes would it require?

True, and I see a number of problems there. For instance, one basic idea of a welfare state is that Joe, who is out of work and a drunk, will not starve. But give him a month's stipend on the 1st, and if he hasn't drunk himself into a coma by the 5th. he'll be starving by the 10th. Now what happens to him?

On the other hand, it might do a hell of a lot of good to social peace if the old, sick, unemployed aren't receiving payments that nobody else gets. "I have to work and you get it for free --" "Uhm, no. We both get the same amount for free." Not an absolute, because you can still come back with "But both our stipends are taken from wealth only I am working for!", but I think it would be an advantage by degree.

Now that's an interesting idea. A guaranteed basic allowance in place of all welfare programs. Twice a month everyone gets a check for whatever dollar amount, which is the same for everyone. Hmmm . . .

Choice has to come into it somewhere, if you want to keep tweaking the rules for every exception you'll get to the point where you micromanage everyone. And it's also why I prefer a UBI over welfare - a UBI is income, not welfare. I agree that if society is supporting Joe, then society gets a say in how Joe spends that - and why I support a credit card system if we're going to continue with welfare, that way certain goods are verboten although people will find a way around it (there was a trade in Milk Vouchers in the UK in the past!) which really shows how bone deep trading is in us.

But as I say, a UBI is a national income - a dividend in the nation if you will - and should be free to be spent as chosen. If Joe prefers a damaged liver to a full belly, then that is Joe's choice.

I'm not sure that follows.

If the American low-end worker needs to work 1/2 hour to pay for a Big Mac (which is pretty damned close, actually)

And the Australian has to work, say, 20 minutes for a Big Mac...

then wouldn't that relationship extrapolate right up the pay scale? An American who makes 3 times minimum wage only has to work 10 minutes for a Big Mac...but there's no obvious reason why the equivalent guy in Australia isn't making 3 times as much as well.

I do think there's a catch 22 in all this sort of thing. I'm loath to discuss my personal financial particulars outside the Blue Room but for illustrative purposes...

let's say you work 20 hours a week for minimum wage (as is typical at your local supermarket or dollar stor and for many employees of walmart and various fast food chains) - no, let's round it to 7.50 for easy of calculation.

That's $150 a week, or $650 a month as the government calculates it.
Let's also assume there are two minor children in the home.

At that rate of pay, you can get rent support in the amount of something around $400 a month, Food stamps of $500 or more a month, medicaid on the kids...maybe some other stuff I'm not remembering.

Now, let that person get more hours or a raise such that they are making ~$1,000 a month...they are in theory $350 a month better off, yes? Not so. The next time they are certified for assistance, the stamps will go down $50-100 or more, and the support will drop $100-150...which is to say half or more of the increased salary goes right back in increased costs (not counting more subtle stuff like extra gas or whatever)

Now, is it right and just that this person be earning (more of) their food and roof instead of having it provided by the taxpayer? Of course! But it remains true that per human nature, a certain percentage of folks are less motivated to increase their income when they know that they really aren't getting much of a raise at all.

It's difficult to come up with a solution which both helps those in need and also doesn't serve to undermine ambition.

On the "menial labor" question - one of the things that is forgotten is basic human greed.

If you gave people a basic income stipend, at some point you are going to want something you still can't afford - a better car, a jazzy iphone, a vacation to Hawaii, whatever. and the way you get that is to get a job. Just like now, a job commiserate with your abilities.

In my case, I'd want to earn more than the stipend in order to accelerate my physical transition, but the motivation is irrelevant. Other people would work just because they want to (there's a guy who worked with us at Wlamart for a while, until they pissed him off*, who had a full time factory job, and his wife had a full time job, and he didn't need the money - he was just a workoholic who couldn't sit still at home and wanted something to do). There are not a few of this type around. other will work at something they love to do that might not otherwise have supported them - woodwork for instance, or auto restoration, or whatever.


*one of the clear bonuses of this sort of system, to me, is that the employee experience should get MUCH better. if Walmart knows my very existence doesn't depend on putting up with bullshit, they will be less likely to serve me up some bullshit.

That alone is a BIG argument in favor for me.

Nope, you can't cheat economics, there are still only a limited number of resources in the system.

It's just that the bottom line is raised up.

There is a interesting study here:

http://www.cepr.net/documents/publications/min-wage-2013-02.pdf

That kind of argument makes no sense. Firstly, since both are likely covered by minimum wage laws, the money they receive for their labor is a matter of politics, not economics. Minimum wage laws have completely divorced their pay from the market value of their labor. Secondly, there's no reason to expect that, if wages were market based, that ANY kind of equality would exist between American and Australian workers (or between ANY two groups of workers) because supply and demand may be very different between those places. If absolute equality in conditions existed (or were made to exist) everywhere, there would be no benefit to trade whatsoever. Third, the argument could just as easily be turned on its head and used to question why Australians are paid so much to do something that's done cheaper elsewhere.

"may" and "if" don't support your assertion that it would be "lousy for everyone else who buys big macs" though

The most you could say is that the claim tells you nothing either way about how it would be for other consumers of big macs.

there's evidently some disconnect on my part here.