Why the world should adopt a basic income

if they feared it more than inflation they would advocate it, but only a tiny tiny communist fringe with ulterior motives advocate it for reasons you don't understand. Do you understand it now?

 

who would you want to control it?

 

So real estate developers don't really work and we should let the Girl Scouts develop our real estate?? Notice the way a liberal will never be right about anything.

 

Who would you want to control the supply of shoes?

 

why evade the question??

 

The answer is: Nobody. There should not be a shoe Czar nor a money Czar. I am in favor of the free market.

 

Like my mother-in-law who lives off the dividends from the investments made by her late husband?

 

we tried that, 7000 different currencies, wild cat banks, wild inflations and deflations, recessions and depressions, gold and silver shipping all over etc etc very detrimental to free markets. and most importantly that ship sailed 100 years there is no constituency for free market money. 99% of economists worry about how to manage current system that looks better than ever now anyway.

 

why not be direct? are you saying you approve or disapprove of her lifestyle? Why?

 

Ah, so you're a socialist. Got it. You put yourself out there as a free-market advocate. I guess not.

 

I approve of receiving dividends from ones investments.

 

"Economy" was not always money-based. Humanity graduated to it from an exchange-based system. It is now time to graduate again and transcend monetary constraint.

 

Money is simply a medium of exchange in a market-economy. We, the sheeple of America, have made it a yardstick by which we measure success. (Success in fact has many definitions and not just personal financial net-worth.)

Which is otherwise a meaningless measure in most evolved democracies, with the unique exception of the US. Whyzzat?

Because the accumulation of wealth need not be the primary-objective of a Social Democracy, where the distribution of Wealth (Net After-tax Income) is fair and equitable. Wealth is tolerated but not at the sacrifice of fairness for those at the bottom of the earnings-ladder - thus the distribution of wealth is more gradual and far less lopsided.

Which is decidedly not happening in America today. The UofCal study showed what Income Disparity leads to in America, as shown here - and called the Piketty-Split by the Economist. When the top 0.1% of a population maintain a wealth that is the equivalent of the other 90%, then something is very, very wrong in that economy ...

 

actually socialism is when govt owns major industries

 

why waste your time when 100% of the conversation is about how to manage to current system???

 

you mean the rioters in France are not rioting for more money??? Slow???

 

that would true except under Republican capitalism where you get your wealth from people who give it to you freely because doing so makes them wealthier too. Invent a cure for cancer or a cheap electric car and you can be rich too. Show your jealousy on the internet and embarrass yourself. Sad.

 

why did the communist forget to tell us what to graduate too???

 

Your anti-free market position on money and banking are duly noted.

 

but over all govt money helps the free market more than free market money chaos and depression that you advocate

 

Sure it does. Just keep justifying your opposition to the free market.

 

and you just keep justifying your position for 7000 currencies and depressions

 

I haven't advocated for 7,000 currencies. And the boom-bust cycle is caused by manipulations of the money supply, which is what you advocate for.

 

7000 is what had before Fed, money brokers, wild cat banks, very very inefficient. And you had big manipulations of currency when on bi metal standard too.

 

Yep, thanks to government intervention. Bi-metal standard, what a ****-show.