Home & Garden0 min ago
Latest Lunacy From The Looney Left?
53 Answers
https:/
....words fail me, discuss.
....words fail me, discuss.
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by ToraToraTora. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
I was hoping for better informed opinions, rather than instant indignation.
YMB; there are some people who work very hard for a lifetime and do not make enough money to retire and live off unearned income. There are some people who never work at all, because they were fortunate enough to be born into wealth. I doubt if there are any statistics about the numbers in each of those categories.
YMB; there are some people who work very hard for a lifetime and do not make enough money to retire and live off unearned income. There are some people who never work at all, because they were fortunate enough to be born into wealth. I doubt if there are any statistics about the numbers in each of those categories.
Isn't establishing its viability (or lack thereof) kind of the point of a trial, though?
To a certain extent you could reasonably argue that this trial is hardly large enough to assess its flaws, but this wouldn't be the first time it's trialled (1). See the links below. A couple of notable examples: one trial in South Korea, initially confined to a town, was later expanded to the entire province (2); in another example, in the Netherlands, there were found to be "no negative effects", and in fact that participants increased their "participation in the labour market" (3); and, while a trial in Finland has often been seen as unsuccessful, it has been argued that the study was flawed for multiple reasons (4).
It's also a bit much to call it Communist, since the idea predates Communism (and, for that matter, Capitalism) by a few centuries, while the idea was also popular in the extremely anti-Communist US of the 1960s and 1970s.
(1) https:/
(2) http://
(3) https:/
(4) https:/
To a certain extent you could reasonably argue that this trial is hardly large enough to assess its flaws, but this wouldn't be the first time it's trialled (1). See the links below. A couple of notable examples: one trial in South Korea, initially confined to a town, was later expanded to the entire province (2); in another example, in the Netherlands, there were found to be "no negative effects", and in fact that participants increased their "participation in the labour market" (3); and, while a trial in Finland has often been seen as unsuccessful, it has been argued that the study was flawed for multiple reasons (4).
It's also a bit much to call it Communist, since the idea predates Communism (and, for that matter, Capitalism) by a few centuries, while the idea was also popular in the extremely anti-Communist US of the 1960s and 1970s.
(1) https:/
(2) http://
(3) https:/
(4) https:/
No, maggie. It is happening in Wales https:/
I'm suggesting that it's an idea that ought not to be dismissed as "commie", as if that's somehow enough to end the discussion as to its merits.
I pointed to multiple trials that suggest benefits, and the links also send you to several more. I don't think, by the way, that those trials are in some sense definitive proof that UBI works, and that we should therefore adopt it nationwide without delay, but you can't have a discussion of what works and what doesn't if it's reduced to labelling an idea as "commie", or "lunacy", or whatever other dismissive adjective you'd care to come up with.
I pointed to multiple trials that suggest benefits, and the links also send you to several more. I don't think, by the way, that those trials are in some sense definitive proof that UBI works, and that we should therefore adopt it nationwide without delay, but you can't have a discussion of what works and what doesn't if it's reduced to labelling an idea as "commie", or "lunacy", or whatever other dismissive adjective you'd care to come up with.
I get the feeling that a lot of people say that it's unworkable/unaffordable based on no evidence other than, perhaps, some intuition about how things *should* work. But it's vital to test those intuitions in practice, because many end up being some degree of wrong.
It's true that the initial cost projected over the whole country would be large, with the exact cost depending somewhat on how you target it, but it's not true that you get none of this money back. For example, when you give less well-off people money, they tend to spend it -- on food, holidays, basic healthcare, technology items etc. That means that the money is, mostly, doing something useful. In that sense, this can be equally seen as a large investment, and you could expect in the long run to make much of this back and then some. And, besides, you have to compare the cost to the present system, which itself is expensive, and it's not difficult to find claims that in fact you'd make savings in the long run compared to that.
Anyway, the exact cost depends on how you organise the scheme (obviously), so writing it off as unaffordable without seeing the details *or* without any trial seems premature.
A few more links:
https:/
https:/
It's true that the initial cost projected over the whole country would be large, with the exact cost depending somewhat on how you target it, but it's not true that you get none of this money back. For example, when you give less well-off people money, they tend to spend it -- on food, holidays, basic healthcare, technology items etc. That means that the money is, mostly, doing something useful. In that sense, this can be equally seen as a large investment, and you could expect in the long run to make much of this back and then some. And, besides, you have to compare the cost to the present system, which itself is expensive, and it's not difficult to find claims that in fact you'd make savings in the long run compared to that.
Anyway, the exact cost depends on how you organise the scheme (obviously), so writing it off as unaffordable without seeing the details *or* without any trial seems premature.
A few more links:
https:/
https:/
thank you for your links claire
i find the case for a UBI persuasive in principal but I do worry a lot about it being inflationary... if we get runaway inflation then the money provided can quickly lose value at least in theory.
i am pleased that a trial is being conducted in the UK and await the findings with great interest.
i find the case for a UBI persuasive in principal but I do worry a lot about it being inflationary... if we get runaway inflation then the money provided can quickly lose value at least in theory.
i am pleased that a trial is being conducted in the UK and await the findings with great interest.
Latest Posts
Home & Garden0 min ago
Quizzes & Puzzles3 mins ago
News3 mins ago
ChatterBank4 mins ago
Quizzes & Puzzles5 mins ago
Related Questions
Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.