Re: [ox-en] Re: Basic income as an option?
- From: Michael Bouwens <michelsub2003 yahoo.com>
- Date: Mon, 24 Oct 2005 22:24:55 -0700 (PDT)
[Converted from multipart/alternative]
[1 text/plain]
My replies start with CAPITALS below,
Michel
Stefan Merten <smerten oekonux.de> wrote:
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hi Michel and all!
2 weeks (19 days) ago Michael Bouwens wrote:
Thanks Stefan, for your interesting comments and
probing questions,
I understand this in that way that you are no longer interested in
discussing. Sorry I noticed this so late. I'll stick to
some minor clarifications.
NOT AT ALL STEFAN. Please note that I was travelling for ten days, and I never take a laptop with me. So, if I do not reply directly it could mean: 1) that I was a way 2) that your email got to the bottom of my list (I work in reverse chronological order); 3) that I do not know what exactly to reply to your arguments. It rarely means "I'm no longer interested"
Again, you assume a direct leap from capitalism to
communism, i.e. a highly unlikely possibility,
Well, so far I argued mostly that your ideology won't help this step.
Otherwise I don't know what you mean by a direct leap. If a direct
leap can last 200 years I indeed think that a direct leap is possible.
Just as there were a direct leap from feudalism to capitalism.
Our current currency
system is not 'smart' at all, since 90% of it cannot
be used in productive endeavour, and it creates global
poverty.
You are thinking in moral terms.
NO, I'M NOT <only> thinking in moral terms, though there is nothing wrong with that, but also in terms of efficiency. A society that excludes from participation a majority of the world population is not very <efficient> as well, so the money system is not working well, from that perspective. Furthermore, you reason in black an white terms, i.e. exchange is bad, no exchange is good. These are just two poles on a continium. Many people desire fairer exchange, as in fair trade, etc.. If we think that exchange will remain part of the equation for a long time, then it is important, in terms of social justice, to make it fairer.
Different protocols are being thought of by
very smart people, such as Bernard Lietaer, who
understand money very well.
Well, I'm not impressed by names. I find arguments more convincing.
THE NAME IS of course a shorthand for a whole body or arguments developed by them.
Conditional social welfare creates an unemployment
trap, since it becomes unattractive to work for
marginal gains. Unconditional basic income does not
destroy any incentive to work, only the attractivity
of low paid/ low quality options, which must
therefore be adapted in a positive sense.
Sorry but this sounds really ridiculous to me. If I get money because
I'm in a bad social situation and I have to prove this then you say
this kills incentive to work. If I get money even without needing to
prove the necessity the incentive to work is higher. What???
NO WHAT KILLS the motivation to work is that, compared to what I conditionally get, so that I can stay home and take care of my family, the marginal gain for alienating and hard work is not motivating. There are many people taking this option, which I respect, but a large part of the population, in conditions of scarcity, and the Right is playing on this, does not accept this, hence the shift from welfare to workfare schemes. But since you cannot loose the basic income, this negative incentive falls away.
---------------------------------
Yahoo! FareChase - Search multiple travel sites in one click.
[2 text/html]
_________________________________
Web-Site: http://www.oekonux.org/
Organization: http://www.oekonux.de/projekt/
Contact: projekt oekonux.de