Trump diplomacy
- 2017-02-05
Obama, a community organizer by background, used some public money for what you mentioned as
economic stimulus when he took power after the great recession. He would have done much
more but we all know about the obstructionist congress of course. Would you say that
Obama was simply trying to do what you mentioned?
I can't speak for Obama's intentions. Economic systems are controlled by national legislation. Corporations are legal conceits. In Europe, corporate boards must contain 'stake-holders' which must include workers and community. U.S. corporate law is the Wild West of global finance, a land where the Supreme Court recognizes 'corporate personage' (corporations have human rights as individuals) and claims that 'money is speech'. The U.S. congress works directly for the elites as employees of the uniquely U.S. 'democratic system' of campaign finance, K street lobbying, and revolving door patronage. Elite income has grown uninterrupted for 50 years. It works.
Unless U.S. citizens become a direct threat to this process, it will not change. Read: violence.
BeenThere
- 2017-02-05
"There is, however, little or no profit in organizing labor that constructs public housing, public infrastructure, and public education and healthcare facilities. When profit becomes the sole economic force, as it is in Washington Consensus Capitalism, society's 'work' is not delivered to society's workers."
Obama, a community organizer by background, used some public money for what you mentioned as economic stimulus when he took power after the great recession. He would have done much more but we all know about the obstructionist congress of course. Would you say that Obama was simply trying to do what you mentioned?
Trump diplomacy
- 2017-02-05
Consider this radical thought: the purpose of an economic system is to effectively deliver the 'work that needs to be done' in a society to the people in that society who needs jobs.
As a U.S. citizen from New York, I will use an example: the South Bronx.
No one disputes that the area needs housing, schools and hospitals. The census tells us that region is flooded with citizens that cannot find jobs.
Work to be done. People desiring to work.
A successful economic system would put those people to work rebuilding their community.
There is, however, little or no profit in organizing labor that constructs public housing, public infrastructure, and public education and healthcare facilities. When profit becomes the sole economic force, as it is in Washington Consensus Capitalism, society's 'work' is not delivered to society's workers.
Three miles south of the Bronx on Wall Street and three miles Northeast in Greenwich, financial wizards crunch financial formulas fed by Hedge fund fortunes held by .01 percent of the population.
Basic income merely pacifies the underclass while elites gorge on capital. It does not build society.
Arthur
- 2017-02-04
Have a friend, originally from Quebec, who told me that some 25-30 years ago, welfare was available to some 20% of the population. Anybody who could lie on a paper form with some level of credibility could receive welfare (and it was quite generous). It was an industry. A very common scam was for a couple of friends on welfare who lived in Montreal or Quebec City where tourists are looking for monthly lodging during the nice months of the year, and who had 2 separate apartments, to have one of them move with the other, renting the vacant apartment to tourists and sharing the income. When winter comes, they return to their individual apartments. He heard that this scam is still very popular to this day.
My friend used to be sure that such a system for 7-8 million people would fail miserably; he left Quebec for that reason. But he was totally wrong: Quebec is doing well. That's close to the concept of basic income. I am not saying that it would work for a very large country. But for small countries like Finland (and rest of Scandinavia for example), it can work pretty well it seems.
Curious
- 2017-02-04
I found an article about that interesting topic (link below) which also says:
The basic income was popularized by the economist Milton Friedman in the 1960s as a "negative income tax" but is picking up steam in several countries — Canada, India and the Netherlands — and in Silicon Valley.The Dutch city of Utrecht is in the process of a pilot project on basic income, and seven other cities in the country have announced their intention to explore the idea, which has been discussed in the Netherlands since the 1970s.
In November, Tesla and SpaceX founder Elon Musk said that he believes the solution to taking care of human workers who are displaced by robots and software is creating a (presumably government-backed) universal basic income for all.
As someone mentioned here a few days ago, trump believes that he can bring jobs back in the US. He is totally deluded: the lost jobs were lost to robots and microchips. There will be more and more robots (even Chinese manufacturers are in the process of replacing their employees with robots) and Moore's law says that computing power keeps doubling every year. Extrapolate 15 years, and the majority of people are unemployed. Basic income, to me, seems to be the answer.