Capitol Hill Blue Forums Political Issues Finance, the economy & Economics Universal Basic Income? Guaranteed Job?

The topic of this thread is a UBI, which is (1) just another temporary band-aid to keep the workers from eating the rich or (2) an example of the power of government to regulate the excesses of capitalism and fix the imbalance of income caused by manipulation of tax laws.

I guess you could interpret it either way.

I think it is pretty unlikely that any revolution will occur as long as the general population is fairly well fed. People usually start looting stores if the stores contain a lot of stuff they don't already have. The closest thing we have to a movement now is BLM, which would be pretty much deflated if the cops just stopped killing Black men for no reason.

I'm just guessing here, Zeke, but it appears from the tone that you feel you've made some kind of a point. I feel like I am speaking to a wall. It's incredibly unsatisfying. Please, provide me an example of where you have actually responded to the substance of any comment I made. We can proceed from there. Perhaps you can identify how a mixed a economy doesn't exit (and, please notify the majority of economists)? Maybe I missed something in my economics or political philosophy classes?

UBI is, I think, a paradigm shift. It is a major departure from the wage economy. The principle point of a "mixed" economy is to ameliorate the negative effects of private capitalist economic activity, primarily the "externalized social costs", such as environmental degradation, while at the same time recognizing that capitalist enterprises provide significant economic boosts to the economy as a whole.

Why does that always bring to mind some sort of plug in cord for some sort of electrical plug in devise? Because it is! Plug and play. Then work. Or not.

I agree with those who would view such a subsidy as exactly that. A device whereby the welfare system as we know it would be eliminated and the lazy could solely exist on it. All the while assuaging the hearts of the bleeding sort. “Hey, they have an income (by doing nothing) so I’m off the hook.” Then again, more motivated ones could use it as a mechanism whereby their basic needs will have been met, and if they chose to work for wages over and above that (or through some sort of personal enterprise) they could actually make a “living”. Perhaps not in NYC (Zeke) but there always is the option of moving elsewhere. As humans have done since their beginnings.

Allz I know now is many Trump supporters are hurting so they latch on- and there is a reason. Just not the ones they believe to be true. And will not be answered by the Trumpster any-who.

I will take your word for it if you've been there.
I was always told that "Gaijin" aren't truly welcomed.

Mode of production - look it up. There's plenty written about it. It is the fundamental basis of ANY economy.
I never said Mixed Economy doesn't exist... I ask you politely, but for the last time, to stop putting words in my mouth.
I did say it is Capitalism in a party hat, not unlike Intelligent Design. It doesn't address the question of mode of production.
Keynes believed that government intervention could reduce the excesses of Capitalism. But, when the government is owned by the corporations, (as in the U.S.) the intervention favors the capitalists. The destruction of Labor Unions would be an example. As would be the concentration of wealth which occurs in ALL of the so-called instances of Mixed Economy, and especially in most of the developed countries.

I ask you to actually read what I wrote. Your ideology is blinding you to what I am saying, again.
You cannot reconcile Capitalist Accumulation with Labor. Clear?
As for your points: you have made none. You stated opinions. I disagree with your opinions.

Every time you pull out this canard, my friend, it makes me laugh, I have to admit. One of us is doctrinaire in his thinking, but that is not the one I see when I look in my mirror. It reminds me of Donald Trump's "rubber-glue" argumentation. So, let's get back to substance...

(Now that, I think, is where "opinion without substance" resides...)

I maintain that Marx's view of socialism as a transition to communism is a pipe dream that even he did not fully embrace. Empirically-speaking, his view of the transformation has never occurred in the real world and for myriad reasons. (I'm open to counter-examples.) Instead, of course, governments and economies have adjusted to address the concerns he raised. Your arguments seem to fixate on doctrinaire application of his dialectic - my perception - rather than to address how his theories have been absorbed and adjusted within the world economy and economic thinking. The conflict, I think, it putting Marx into context. For example, your reference to "modes of production" - which, like "social classes", is a nascent concept that he never really fully fleshed out. Das Kapital like Adam Smith's The Wealth of Nations is a seminal work of economic thinking, but neither is the denouement of the subject.

Marx sought to put a framework around his theories, and did a very good job of doing so, but not all of reality fits within the framework. For example: take a "public-private partnership" in a stadium. Is that a socialist construction (since it is paid for by bonds, and the state shares the revenues and ownership), or is it a capitalist one (since the activities within it and surrounding it are private in nature)? Or is it, as I would maintain, mixed. These kinds of activities were not imagined in Marx's works. Public universities? Public hospitals? Similarly, how about ESOPs? When the workers own, partially or fully, the means of production, how does that fit into Marx's paradigm? Now you've mixed both class AND mode.

My objection is the desire to pigeonhole - again, the either/or mindset "You cannot reconcile Capitalist Accumulation with Labor. Clear?" UBI is a different paradigm because it changes the nature of the relationship between citizens, government, and private capital. It's an amalgamation. Since it doesn't fit neatly into a pigeonhole it raises an objection.

In an effort to discredit my approach, moreover, it is you, my friend, not I, who "put words in my mouth." E.g. "how Capitalism is going to help labor." Where in the world did that come from? Certainly not from anything I said. I certainly never made any such argument.

I disagree. That is your question, not mine (because I am not about the pigeonhole). I am much more interested in the second of those questions:My answer is multi-fold. ESOPs are one solution, UBI is another. I don't disagree that the fundamental defect of capitalism is the inevitable concentration of wealth - I rail about it often enough myself. In my view, however, it is the role of government not to usurp private ownership (e.g., communism), but to ameliorate the effects that protection of such ownership implies. That is where government socialism applies - and it comes in many forms: Social Security, unemployment compensation, universal health care, government ownership of resources (e.g., mineral rights, forests, managed lands, etc.), environmental protection regimes, national parks - there can be many more.

My approach is not to focus on labels but effects. Like Smith I take the broader view of the Wealth of the Nation. On the individual level we can be both labor AND investor (as I have been my whole life). We are all, however, citizens and participants in the economy of the nation and should be allowed to share in the fruits of that progress. The mechanism for that is the government that we share. Some of it involves the redistribution of wealth, some of it involves the sequestration of resources, some of it involves collective action to restrict or mitigate private commercial activity. The same instinct that is activated in protecting private civil rights should inform our approach to protecting our economic rights as citizens, but that doesn't imply taking those rights away.

Your opinions are your own. You can think whatever nonsense you want. Let me think my own nonsense.
Your pipe dream of some happy campfire singalong between labor and capital is a non starter. You cannot give one example of where it works.
Why is private ownership better? What makes it legal, other than the laws of a system that created it and benefit from it?
Your logic is non existent. Your basic premise is flawed. And when the basic premise is flawed the whole theory is questionable, to say the least. Your taking a position based on what you think. If you were alive during slavery you'd have found similar justification for it. (Note that I don't mean you personally).
You have avoided my question on the mode of production. Just sayin
Even when ownership is shared between a capitalist state and a private company there is no socialist element. Both represent the same underlying system.
And it is capital that usurps value from labor - since you like the word so much
Your ideas do not jive with reality dear friend.

But I digress

We haven't discussed the guaranteed job concept much. I am listening right now to Richard Wolff's Economic Update and he presents, in his inimitable 'all the lights on' way, the reality of unemployment, and how crazy we are to let it happen.

Clearly it is not possible to penetrate your predilections, Zeke. I have provided dozens of exemplars to demonstrate real-world application, but apparently they don't jibe with your notions of "reality." I give up. I hope that others have been able to approach the discussion with greater flexibility of mind.