[dinopello]

This just in - What about a guaranteed income system?

Now, the good news: The fear, stress and humiliation caused by unemployment (and underemployment) can be alleviated with a simple solution.

And now, the even-better news: This simple solution is starting to find backers on both sides of the political spectrum.

The idea of a basic income, sometimes called a guaranteed minimum income or a negative income tax, has been discussed for decades by notable economists like Milton Friedman. In the late 1960s and 1970s, the idea had bipartisan backing before losing steam.

The United States is already experimenting with a variation of basic income, even though most people don't realize it. Alaska has a small version, called a Permanent Fund Dividend, which is incredibly popular and made the state one of the most economically equal places in America.

Philosopher Matt Zwolinski has made a libertarian case for a basic income. "Conservatives care about limiting the power of government and increasing personal responsibility. ... Compared to our current welfare state, a basic income does both. Instead of a vast bureaucracy of over 120 different antipoverty programs at the federal level, you've got a program so simple it could be administered by a piece of software."

[Plantagenet]

A guaranteed basic income system is a great idea, but it will never fly with liberals.

The basic idea is that once the guaranteed income was in place, the government could do away with welfare, foodstamps, housing subsidies, school lunch subsidies, Obamacare subsidies etc. etc. People receiving government benefits would be expected to live on their guaranteed income.

But just as teacher unions fight against charter schools, the legions of social workers and bureaucrats administering welfare, foodstamps, housing subsidies, school lunch subsidies, Obamacare subsidies etc. etc. will fight to the death to keep guaranteed income off the books and their own buffet list of welfare programs growing.

Also, a guaranteed income would not be paid to illegal aliens, while many of the existing welfare programs do include illegal aliens.

Nope---liberals would never support it.

[Serial_Worrier]

The only reason Lore liked the auto-bailout portion of TARP is because some of the money went to union workers.

[Plantagenet]

The idea that its OK for GM or the UAW or Chrysler or Fiat to raid the US treasury is ridiculous.

Every other president who got involved in bailing out a private industry in Detroit or elsewhere demanded that all the money be repaid---every penny. Chysler repaid every penny of the bailout it got back in 1979. But this time Obama set his bailout up so the auto industry got to skate free with 20 billion dollars of taxpayer money---even though they are making billions in profits and could easily repay the money now. Who in their right mind would support that?

Obama didn't rescue capitalism in Detroit---he set up Chicago-style CRONY capitalism there on a massive scale. Obama set it up so 20 billion dollars went to his cronies.....

[Lore]

The idea that its OK for GM or the UAW or Chrysler or Fiat gets to raid the US treasury is ridiculous.

Every other president who got involved in bailing out a private industry in Detroit or elsewhere demanded that all the money be repaid---every penny. Chysler repaid every penny of the bailout it got back in 1979 But this time Obama set his bailout up so the auto industry got to skate free with 20 billion dollars of taxpayer money---even though they are making in billions in profits and could easily repay the money now.

Obama didn't rescue capitalism in Detroit---he set up Chicago-style CRONY capitalism there on a massive scale.....

Don't you get it yet? Obama is the black superman! You've been trying to tug on his cape ever since he got elected, twice I might add!

Your're once again talking out of your nether regions. As I pointed out TARP has saved the economy billions of dollars in lost revenue and jobs across the spectrum of employment from McDonalds to the Wall Street hedge fund CEOs and bankers. You have the same ole opinion, but no facts. Just too busy throwing spit balls is all.

You should be kissing his feet that your backwards state still has an economy to keep you slackers on the dole. You ingrate you!

[Plantagenet]

Obama is the black superman!

Nah....look at the photo----thats some other guy.

You have .... no facts.

You must have missed the post where I quoted you saying that GM failed to repay 12 BILLION dollars. As far as I can see we agree on the facts----Automakers in Detroit didn't repay billions of dollars in TARP money.

... kissing his feet

You're fantasizing about kissing something all right, but I don't think its his feet.

[Lore]

You must have missed the post where I quoted you saying that GM failed to repay 12 BILLION dollars. As far as I can see we agree on the facts----Automakers in Detroit didn't repay billions of dollars in TARP money.

You must not believe in the free enterprise capitalist system then? The US government took the same risk as assumed by anyone who purchases stock. The end game was that the stock was worth less when the government sold it back.

Asked whether GM should pay the difference between the amount the government provided the company and the return from the sale of the shares, Akerson said the "die was cast" by Treasury when it decided to take shares. For GM to make up for any shortfall could result in lawsuits from other shareholders. Those investors expect the company to resume paying a dividend for the first time since it exited bankruptcy in July 2009.

http://www.usatoday.com/story/money/car ... t/4043607/

[Plantagenet]

You must have missed the post where I quoted you saying that GM failed to repay 12 BILLION dollars. As far as I can see we agree on the facts----Automakers in Detroit didn't repay billions of dollars in TARP money.

Akerson said the "die was cast" by Treasury when it decided to take shares. For GM to make up for any shortfall could result in lawsuits from other shareholders.

Yes---thats exactly my point.

Rather than demanding that ALL the TARP money be paid back, Obama set it up so the automakers ripped off the taxpayer for billions of dollars in TARP funds.

Thats how crony capitalism work--- politicians like Obama set up sleazy deals that transfer taxpayer money to their cronies.

[Lore]

You must have missed the post where I quoted you saying that GM failed to repay 12 BILLION dollars. As far as I can see we agree on the facts----Automakers in Detroit didn't repay billions of dollars in TARP money.

Akerson said the "die was cast" by Treasury when it decided to take shares. For GM to make up for any shortfall could result in lawsuits from other shareholders.

Yes---thats exactly my point.

Rather than demanding that ALL the TARP money be paid back, Obama set it up so the automakers ripped off the taxpayer for billions of dollars in TARP funds.

Thats how crony capitalism work--- politicians like Obama set up sleazy deals that transfer taxpayer money to their cronies.

How do you demand to be paid more for something that's worth less. Explain that? That's the way the markets work, or are you confused about that too?

The government didn't need all it's money back because the government is a non profit organization and is already making a substantial return to the US taxpayer on TARP. The auto component being just a part of the package.

You got nothing...nothing! Is this your pithy comeback?

Just exactly who are all these cronies aside from the big corporate bankers, whom already are assumed off limits by every administration. I'd like to know what auto cronies got the big payoff you're talking about? Please, give us some figures and examples here so we can bask in the magnificence of your insight.

If I didn't know better I'd say you're acting like a perfect reverse barometer for any Obama initiative. All you have to do is expect the opposite of what ever opinion you make about the guy.

[ralfy]

In capitalism, cronyism is inevitable.

[Tanada]

In capitalism, cronyism is inevitable.

Have no fear the same thing went on in the USSR, the Roman Empire and Ancient Egypt. Maggots are attracted to rotting meat and special interests are attracted to centers of power.

[Timo]

In capitalism, cronyism is inevitable.

Have no fear the same thing went on in the USSR, the Roman Empire and Ancient Egypt. Maggots are attracted to rotting meat and special interests are attracted to centers of power.

I guess that proves the point exactly, that capitalism isn't working. That's just one reason why. Add technology and cheap fossil fuel abundance, and capitalism is leading us to the very end of the road. Permanently. It sure is a good system we've got.

[ralfy]

Have no fear the same thing went on in the USSR, the Roman Empire and Ancient Egypt. Maggots are attracted to rotting meat and special interests are attracted to centers of power.

Indeed, as state capitalism was involved in the USSR. The difference is that with competition the drive for overproduction and increasing credit is pronounced. We should also consider more significant environmental damage, global warming, increased arms production and use, higher energy returns needed, a far larger human population, and others.

[Graeme]

Paul Krugman - New York Times Blog

There’s obviously a lot to be said about the substance of Piketty’s book, and there will be many more research papers inspired by his work. What I want to do, however, is go somewhat meta, and talk about how Piketty fits into the ongoing debate over the nature and implications of rising inequality — and why “Capital in the Twenty-First Century” is having such a big impact.

So here’s my diagnosis of why “Capital” is so big: Piketty offers the latest and most damning in what have been a series of “Oh, yeah? Guess what” moments.

In the first stage of the debate over inequality, there was widespread denial that rising inequality was even happening on any major scale. Actually, there still is — in this debate, in which one side is sustained by vast amounts of money and influence with an interest in obfuscation, refuted arguments are never abandoned; they just keep coming back. No point is ever conceded by the apologists. But it was nonetheless true that by sometime in the early 90s you could mostly say, “Oh, yeah? Guess what.” The evidence for a sharp rise in inequality, a definitive break with the three postwar decades, was overwhelming.



This brings me to my second point about Piketty, which is that his work greatly reinforces the notion that we may face a political-economy spiral of inequality, in which great wealth brings great power, which is used to reinforce the concentration of wealth. That was a concern even when we thought we were facing a one-generation dispersion of economic success. But it becomes much more of a concern when one realizes that we’re talking about creating an environment favorable to “patrimonial capitalism”, of sustained dominance by family dynasties.

And let me say that while the core of Piketty’s work is his economic analysis, his discussion of the political economy of dynastic wealth is a major additional highlight. I was especially struck by the somewhat paradoxical contrast between Belle Epoque France and Gilded Age America: a notionally egalitarian society in which anything that might challenge the privileges of inherited wealth was beyond the pale, versus a society that celebrated financial success but in which it was considered reasonable and respectable to advocate high taxation for the explicit purpose of reducing inequality. It seems to me that we want some real scholarship — from political scientists, not (or not just) economists — to figure out that contrast, and learn lessons that might help us break the cycle of rising dynastic power we face today.

nytimes

[Keith_McClary]

An important function of the government is to build infrastructure.

In Alberta our gubmint is struggling to pay for a highway to the tar sands.

[americandream]

Have no fear the same thing went on in the USSR, the Roman Empire and Ancient Egypt. Maggots are attracted to rotting meat and special interests are attracted to centers of power.

Indeed, as state capitalism was involved in the USSR. The difference is that with competition the drive for overproduction and increasing credit is pronounced. We should also consider more significant environmental damage, global warming, increased arms production and use, higher energy returns needed, a far larger human population, and others.

Not quite. The USSR was statist whereas scientific socialism will be global. In other words, the Soviet encapsulated all of the features of transitory communism in one part of the globe and surrounded by a thriving and antagonistic ocean of capitalism. But to suggest that it was part of the conduit of global capital is absurd. Many have characterised the USSR thus but they are wrong.

[ralfy]

Not quite. The USSR was statist whereas scientific socialism will be global. In other words, the Soviet encapsulated all of the features of transitory communism in one part of the globe and surrounded by a thriving and antagonistic ocean of capitalism. But to suggest that it was part of the conduit of global capital is absurd. Many have characterised the USSR thus but they are wrong.

I was not arguing that the USSR was part of global capitalism. Rather, it employed state capitalism.

[americandream]

Not quite. The USSR was statist whereas scientific socialism will be global. In other words, the Soviet encapsulated all of the features of transitory communism in one part of the globe and surrounded by a thriving and antagonistic ocean of capitalism. But to suggest that it was part of the conduit of global capital is absurd. Many have characterised the USSR thus but they are wrong.

I was not arguing that the USSR was part of global capitalism. Rather, it employed state capitalism.

If you aren't in global liquidity (which is what capital is), you aren't in capital, state or otherwise. You may be an imperfect form of socialism as in being statist. You are either in the global conduit of liquidity flow or you aren't.

[SeaGypsy]

Here we go again. If you operate in cashola you are in global liquidity, whether or not you have any idea what that means.

[ralfy]

If you aren't in global liquidity (which is what capital is), you aren't in capital, state or otherwise. You may be an imperfect form of socialism as in being statist. You are either in the global conduit of liquidity flow or you aren't.

Global liquidity is not necessary for state capitalism to exist.