Guaranteed Income Experiment

[ScottL]

http://www.dominionpaper.ca/articles/4100

This was suggested at one point in another thread, but the link is to an article about it occuring fairly close to home for us U.S. citizens. The more I read about it, the more I think I'm in favor of this methodology for supplementation of poverty.

[Diogenes]

http://www.dominionpaper.ca/articles/4100

This was suggested at one point in another thread, but the link is to an article about it occuring fairly close to home for us U.S. citizens. The more I read about it, the more I think I'm in favor of this methodology for supplementation of poverty.

I read the article. What I want to know is, did Beta => 1 ?

Did the introduction of fuel into the reactor produce excess power? Did Canada get more than 17 million dollars worth of benefit out of their 17 million dollar expenditure?

[ScottL]

http://www.dominionpaper.ca/articles/4100

This was suggested at one point in another thread, but the link is to an article about it occuring fairly close to home for us U.S. citizens. The more I read about it, the more I think I'm in favor of this methodology for supplementation of poverty.

I read the article. What I want to know is, did Beta => 1 ?

Did the introduction of fuel into the reactor produce excess power? Did Canada get more than 17 million dollars worth of benefit out of their 17 million dollar expenditure?

Hard to say with only 4 hour.rrr...year test. Health related service requests dropped by 8.5% and at today's rates, you might view it as a cheaper preventive medicine measure. I like the idea that they can work and are only supplemented up to the poverty line, giving them a chance.

[choff]

Does Beta=>1 for the bank bailouts and CEO bonus's. Consider if the $ 800 Billion + Paulson asked for had been distributed to the poor and lower middle income Americans. The banks would have still received the money when it trickled up the system. Instead it went straight to the top and just stayed there.

It reminds me of what the Social Credit party tried to do in Alberta in the 30's but was prevented by the courts on constitutional grounds, only the federal government had the authority.

[Diogenes]

Does Beta=>1 for the bank bailouts and CEO bonus's. Consider if the $ 800 Billion + Paulson asked for had been distributed to the poor and lower middle income Americans. The banks would have still received the money when it trickled up the system. Instead it went straight to the top and just stayed there.

It reminds me of what the Social Credit party tried to do in Alberta in the 30's but was prevented by the courts on constitutional grounds, only the federal government had the authority.

If you want to change the subject, start another thread. I'm all for the government minding it's own business (including Law Enforcement, MSimon) and not trying to manipulate society or the markets.

[choff]

In the 30's the Alberta economy was reduced to a barter system in many areas, available money had dryed up. The provincial government was prevented from printing and issuing currency on legal grounds. They really just wanted to jump start the economy back into operation, people refered to it as 'priming the pump'.

[hanelyp]

When government economists attempt to "prime the pump" what they usually end up with is closer to flooding the engine.

[choff]

The mincom experiments were different in some respects. They happened in a province that had voted socialist quite often from the 30's onward. The economic problems of the 70's were high unemployment and high inflation. We can extrapolate the cost of a $17 million Can. program in 1970's dollars for 4 towns to today's economy.

There was no federal new deal in Canada during the 30's. Everyone who lived through that era in my country has told me that if the war hadn't come along in 39, and things kept on the same we would have had a communist revolution in 4 to 5 years.

[seedload]

http://www.dominionpaper.ca/articles/4100

This was suggested at one point in another thread, but the link is to an article about it occuring fairly close to home for us U.S. citizens. The more I read about it, the more I think I'm in favor of this methodology for supplementation of poverty.

I don't like the system. It involves government decisions as to who is under the line and entitled to receive this benefit. Also, it doesn't seem to replace any other form of government managed benefit.

When you say this has been suggested in another thread, I think you are referring to my suggestion. My suggestion was different in that everyone is paid the benefit equally, regardless of income level and everyone contributes to the benefit as a percentage of income. By doing it this way, the benefit automatically regulates itself based on the current economic conditions. We are not paying out more in hard times and less in good times. It all adjusts with the times. Further, this is really easy to implement with no substantial government administration necessary. This is really a transaction between citizens, not separate unweighted transactions between us and the government and the government and who they decide is worthy.

Lastly, my suggestion is that the benefit be substantial enough that it would replace everything else. No complicated government run social programs. Just this.

Everyone pays 30% of their income into a pool. Everyone gets an equal share of that pool.

What I did like was the result that it did not stop people from working. This is what I would have suspected. I think if the benefit doesn't disappear above a certain income level that this would be even more true.

Couple of quotes. “There's very strong feelings out there that we shouldn't give people money for nothing,” Mulvale says. True, but if everyone is given the same amount of money for nothing and the money that is given for nothing adjusts appropriately down in hard times, this might be more tolerable.

“A guaranteed minimum income program is a superior way of delivering social assistance. The only thing is that it's of course politically difficult to implement.” That is right on. While I think that my suggested system is the best way to do this, Democrats would hate it because it gives up government control of who gets what (voting blocks) and Republicans would hate it because it is socialism.

Further, without this being done through amendment and reaffirmation of the enumerated powers, it would be garbage because other crap would just be layered on top of it. It only makes sense if it exists by itself and accounts for all social benefits.

I would suggest that we already have socialism, that it is failing, and that this kind of proposal might be the most capitalistic form of socialism that can be thought of - at least 70% capitalist that is:)

regards

[Diogenes]

The mincom experiments were different in some respects. They happened in a province that had voted socialist quite often from the 30's onward. The economic problems of the 70's were high unemployment and high inflation. We can extrapolate the cost of a $17 million Can. program in 1970's dollars for 4 towns to today's economy.

There was no federal new deal in Canada during the 30's. Everyone who lived through that era in my country has told me that if the war hadn't come along in 39, and things kept on the same we would have had a communist revolution in 4 to 5 years.

And how would that have made anything better?

[Teahive]

Shame to let data rot like this for decades, no matter which direction it ultimately points to.

I would suggest that we already have socialism, that it is failing, and that this kind of proposal might be the most capitalistic form of socialism that can be thought of - at least 70% capitalist that is:)

Well put, and I'm in pretty complete agreement with what you wrote. I'd add that I think it might be the most balanced and stable form of capitalism, too.

[KitemanSA]

When government economists attempt to "prime the pump" what they usually end up with is closer to flooding the engine.

When government econ-pushers try to "prime the pump" they are pushing stimulants onto the body economic, stimulants that said body can become (and indeed HAVE become) addicted too.

Such pushers are the REAL evil doers. They use STOLEN money to involuntarily addict all businesses. It is no wonder we are in such bad shape.

[choff]

You can't compare the 30's with the 70's, let alone today's problems. In the 30's, in Alberta and the other prairie provinces the engine was dead! People were desperate to get it going again by any and all means possible.
The old Social Credit party had the unique distiction of having its rallies physcially attacked(in England) by both Communists and Fascists. They weren't anti-business, they were actually trying to save the system from dying.