Activism Discussion: Rent And Basic Income

Rent And Basic Income
Posts: 131

Report Abuse

Use this form to report abuse or request takedown.
The requests are usually processed within 48 hours.

Page: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11   Next  (First | Last)

Quirk
2005-05-19 11:49:08 EST
Basic Income has long been supported by economists and activists as an
antidote to poverty.

As I myself have promoted the idea in the past, I am open minded to it,
however in light of my current better understanding of
Ricardian/Georgist economic theories regarding Rent, I have become a
bit sceptical about it.

What would prevent Income derived from a Basic Income (or Guaranteed
Annual Income, Negative Income Tax) distributive mechanism from being
absorbed by Rental increases?

Increased competition for locations in the community, fueled by the
Basic Income, would drive the Rents up until the actual share of
consumptive goods the Basic Income recipients could afford fell back to
their previous level.

It seems plausible to me that rather than allowing the poor to consume
more of the product of the economy, as intended, this mechanism could
end up merely transferring that claim on consumption to the Landlords.

Assuming that this Basic Income was funded by way of Income and
Consumption Taxation, wouldn't that amount to yet another transfer of
wealth from the workers to landowners by way of the State?


Nu-monet V7.0
2005-05-19 13:56:05 EST
Quirk wrote:
>
> Basic Income has long been supported by economists
> and activists as an antidote to poverty.

It's no longer funny when somebody has a hairbrained
scheme in economics that they think everybody should
do *just* because it sounds good to them.

It's like, well, people have been scraping and dying
for one crust of bread to live on for one day for like
5000 years, and yet, nobody ever thought of my brilliant
idea how we can all be fabulously wealthy!

You idiots. These issues have been life-or-death to
billions of people for thousands of years. Has it ever
occurred to you that someone else might have thought of
it first, and it was a dumb idea then, and it's a dumb
idea now, and among ideas it has been gang-raped and
beaten by entire biker gangs full of better ideas in
the perpetual Darwinism of ideas that happens when damn
near every single person on the planet has to think
about how to live OR DIE?

In a way it is like dumbass neo-Nazis who think Hitler
is cool because he had cool uniforms, while totally
unthinking about WWII and all that "stuff". And they,
too, get all pissy if you want to tell them that they
are full of shit and should be horsewhipped.


--
Be Sure To Visit the 'SubGenius Reverend' Blog:
http://slackoff.blogspot.com/
***********
Herring communicate with each other
via a high-pitched, "raspberry"-like
sound emitted from their anuses.
These noises are not produced by
digestive gases.
-- from 'The New Scientist'

R*@telus.net
2005-05-19 14:24:55 EST
On Thu, 19 May 2005 10:56:05 -0700, "nu-monet v7.0"
<*g@succeeds.com> wrote:

>Quirk wrote:
>>
>> Basic Income has long been supported by economists
>> and activists as an antidote to poverty.
>
>It's no longer funny when somebody has a hairbrained
>scheme in economics that they think everybody should
>do *just* because it sounds good to them.

That's not why Nobel laureates in economics support it. Duh.

>It's like, well, people have been scraping and dying
>for one crust of bread to live on for one day for like
>5000 years, and yet, nobody ever thought of my brilliant
>idea how we can all be fabulously wealthy!

OK. People had been trying for thousands of years to transmute
elements, but before Einstein, nobody ever thought of his brilliant
idea of how to do it. So let's hear your brilliant idea.

>You idiots. These issues have been life-or-death to
>billions of people for thousands of years. Has it ever
>occurred to you that someone else might have thought of
>it first, and it was a dumb idea then, and it's a dumb
>idea now, and among ideas it has been gang-raped and
>beaten by entire biker gangs full of better ideas in
>the perpetual Darwinism of ideas that happens when damn
>near every single person on the planet has to think
>about how to live OR DIE?

Except it wasn't, isn't, and hasn't.

>In a way it is like dumbass neo-Nazis who think Hitler
>is cool because he had cool uniforms, while totally
>unthinking about WWII and all that "stuff". And they,
>too, get all pissy if you want to tell them that they
>are full of shit and should be horsewhipped.

<yawn>

-- Roy L

Nu-monet V7.0
2005-05-19 14:39:31 EST
r*s@telus.net wrote:
>
> That's not why Nobel laureates in economics support it. Duh.

As in "a few". A few dumbasses like those who are
still convinced that Marxism can work. Just because
you are a nobel laureate does not mean shit, other
than your buds voted you a prize. Especially in
economics.

> OK. People had been trying for thousands of years
> to transmute elements, but before Einstein, nobody
> ever thought of his brilliant idea of how to do it.
> So let's hear your brilliant idea.

First of all, a *few* people tried to transmute elements.
We are talking about the livelihood of *everyone*, every
man, woman and child. Many of whom were extraordinarily
intelligent, and many who were dumbasses, but greedy.

Second of all, don't even *think* that you come anywhere
near Einstein in your dumbass ideas.

> Except it wasn't, isn't, and hasn't.

Yeah, yeah, yeah. Give it a new label and it's completely
different, right? Nonsense. Same old shit. When man 'A'
takes away from man 'B' to give to man 'C', then man 'A'
is a Son of a Bitch. Old rule.

> <yawn>

Alright, be like the dumbass in Florida who wanted his
name changed to "Hi Hitler" because that's what he thought
everybody was yelling at Hitler.

Damn. Dumbshits with liberal arts bachelor's degrees or
less think they know shit. No, they don't.


--
Be Sure To Visit the 'SubGenius Reverend' Blog:
http://slackoff.blogspot.com/
***********
"Getting shot at was not that bad,
just the getting shot part sucked"
-- U.S. Army Staff Sgt. Villafane

Dan Clore
2005-05-19 15:01:52 EST
nu-monet v7.0 wrote:
> royls@telus.net wrote:
>
>>That's not why Nobel laureates in economics support it. Duh.
>
> As in "a few". A few dumbasses like those who are
> still convinced that Marxism can work.

So now Milton Friedman thinks that Marxism can work?

--
Dan Clore

My collected fiction, _The Unspeakable and Others_:
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/1587154838/thedanclorenecro/
Lord We├┐rdgliffe & Necronomicon Page:
http://www.geocities.com/SoHo/9879/
News & Views for Anarchists & Activists:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/smygo

Strange pleasures are known to him who flaunts the
immarcescible purple of poetry before the color-blind.
-- Clark Ashton Smith, "Epigrams and Apothegms"


Michael A. Clem
2005-05-19 15:03:40 EST
Quirk wrote:

> What would prevent Income derived from a Basic Income (or Guaranteed
> Annual Income, Negative Income Tax) distributive mechanism from being
> absorbed by Rental increases?
>
> Increased competition for locations in the community, fueled by the
> Basic Income, would drive the Rents up until the actual share of
> consumptive goods the Basic Income recipients could afford fell back to
> their previous level.
>

What would probably happen is that governments would pass laws
restricting what rents could be charged (rent control), which would
naturally lead to various unintended consequences and not really solve
the problem, either.
But they'd pat themselves on the back for "helping" the poor, and
blame the "greedy" landowners for the problems.



Ouroboros Rex
2005-05-19 15:19:54 EST

"nu-monet v7.0" <nothing@succeeds.com> wrote in message
news:428CDD63.2A79@succeeds.com...
> royls@telus.net wrote:
>>
>> That's not why Nobel laureates in economics support it. Duh.
>
> As in "a few". A few dumbasses like those who are
> still convinced that Marxism can work. Just because
> you are a nobel laureate does not mean shit, other
> than your buds voted you a prize. Especially in
> economics.
>
>> OK. People had been trying for thousands of years
>> to transmute elements, but before Einstein, nobody
>> ever thought of his brilliant idea of how to do it.
>> So let's hear your brilliant idea.
>
> First of all, a *few* people tried to transmute elements.
> We are talking about the livelihood of *everyone*, every
> man, woman and child. Many of whom were extraordinarily
> intelligent, and many who were dumbasses, but greedy.
>
> Second of all, don't even *think* that you come anywhere
> near Einstein in your dumbass ideas.
>
>> Except it wasn't, isn't, and hasn't.
>
> Yeah, yeah, yeah. Give it a new label and it's completely
> different, right? Nonsense. Same old shit. When man 'A'
> takes away from man 'B' to give to man 'C', then man 'A'
> is a Son of a Bitch. Old rule.
>
>> <yawn>
>
> Alright, be like the dumbass in Florida who wanted his
> name changed to "Hi Hitler" because that's what he thought
> everybody was yelling at Hitler.
>
> Damn. Dumbshits with liberal arts bachelor's degrees or
> less think they know shit. No, they don't.

Did you have an actual point about the CONTENT you wanted to make?



Nu-monet V7.0
2005-05-19 15:23:04 EST
Dan Clore wrote:
>
> nu-monet v7.0 wrote:
> > royls@telus.net wrote:
> >
> >>That's not why Nobel laureates in economics support it. Duh.
> >
> > As in "a few". A few dumbasses like those who are
> > still convinced that Marxism can work.
>
> So now Milton Friedman thinks that Marxism can work?
>

So you think all economists are Milton Friedman?

Well, using that logic, Milton Friedman is an
economist, therefore all economists are Milton
Friedman. Fortunately for us all, there are some
Milton Friedmans who believe far more realistic
scenarios of economics than what the few screwball
Milton Friedmans might think.

Heck, many Milton Friedmans embrace the flat tax,
many are laissez-faire Milton Friedmans, some are
even pro-monopolist Milton Friedmans. And many of
them, if not all, are nobel laureate Milton Friedmans.

The important thing to remember is the axiom, that
"since economics is so important to every single
person on the Earth, and has been so ever since
there was organized production and consumption,
might it just be possible, in my wildest imagination,
to accept the notion that if it currently doesn't
exist as an economic system then there might be a
REASON that it doesn't exist, other than the fact
that I am the most brilliant economist who ever
lived, even though I really don't know jack shit
about economics compared to individuals who have
been studying it for 50 years?"

As far as nobel laureates are concerned, Linus
Pauling, who won a prize for his brilliance in
biochemistry, also believed that if you consumed
enormous amounts of vitamin C, you would live to
an extremely old age with few health complaints.

He was not correct in his assumption, that being
that if you are brilliant in one thing, you are
brilliant in all things. He did prove that you
can still be an idiot in many ways, even if you
have been studying something for 50 years.

--
Be Sure To Visit the 'SubGenius Reverend' Blog:
http://slackoff.blogspot.com/
***********
"We're going to take things away from
you on behalf of the common good."
-- Hillary Clinton

Robert Vienneau
2005-05-19 15:38:17 EST
In article <428CE798.5280@succeeds.com>, like.excess@sex.org wrote:

> Dan Clore wrote:

> > nu-monet v7.0 wrote:
> > > royls@telus.net wrote:

> > >>That's not why Nobel laureates in economics support it. Duh.

The "it" is "Basic Income (or Guaranteed Annual Income, Negative
Income Tax)".

> > > As in "a few". A few dumbasses like those who are
> > > still convinced that Marxism can work.

> > So now Milton Friedman thinks that Marxism can work?

> So you think all economists are Milton Friedman?

No. Dan Clore is telling you nicely that Milton Friedman is
a "Nobel" laureate in economics who supports Quirk's "Basic
Income" idea. Since that is so, you are stupidly implying
that "Milton Friedman thinks that Marxism can work".

> [ Pointless stupidity - deleted. ]

--
Mostly economics: <http://www.dreamscape.com/rvien/#PublicationsForFun>
r c
v s a Whether strength of body or of mind, or wisdom, or
i m p virtue, are found in proportion to the power or wealth
e a e of a man is a question fit perhaps to be discussed by
n e . slaves in the hearing of their masters, but highly
@ r c m unbecoming to reasonable and free men in search of
d o the truth. -- Rousseau

K=F6nig_Pr=FC=DFe=2C_GfbAEV_=3Csaurkraut=40weinerschnitzle=2Ecom=3E?=
2005-05-19 15:46:38 EST
"nu-monet v7.0" wrote:

>Dan Clore wrote:
>>
>> nu-monet v7.0 wrote:
>> > royls@telus.net wrote:
>> >
>> >>That's not why Nobel laureates in economics support it. Duh.
>> >
>> > As in "a few". A few dumbasses like those who are
>> > still convinced that Marxism can work.
>>
>> So now Milton Friedman thinks that Marxism can work?
>>
>
>So you think all economists are Milton Friedman?

I think all economists are Milton Berle.



Page: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11   Next  (First | Last)


2021 - UsenetArchives.com | Contact Us | Privacy | Stats | Site Search
Become our Patron