3rd December 2013
Rejecting the communist idea of ‘basic income’. Bludgers, parasites. Sorry to disappoint you, but no one owes you a living.
For my record, my initial comments against basic income:
My comments at Tim Harford:
Tim, you are incorrect to link this with Friedman’s negative income tax model. That model is a TOP UP of earned income to allow it to reach a social minimum. It is not a LUMP sum payable for NOT working.
This idea is purely communist. Let’s reject it outright.
If you wish to read more about NIT, please check my book, Breaking Free of Nehru, for details.
This idea of ‘basic’ income is fundamentally problematic on many grounds:
a) No one owes anyone anything. Let people earn their own keep in life.
b) The idea ‘income’ implies it is an entitlement. That is a communist idea (to each according to his ‘need’). There is no entitlement to anyone else’s charity.
The idea of Milton Friedman (commonly mixed up in such discussions) is entirely different.
a) It is NOT an income. It is not an entitlement. It is part of the social minimum – a really frugal level just needed to survive, no more.
2) It is a top-up. Say, the social minimum (really frugal) is $5,000 per year per capita in Australia today. Let’s say that a person works very hard and earns $4,800. Then the system would top up with $200, as part of social insurance.
We should thoroughly and vigorously oppose this communist nonsense of “basic income”. Let people work as hard as they can, and if they fail to achieve a FRUGAL social minimum, let them be given a top up. Anything beyond that is the responsibility of charities.
My comments on FB on 28 April 2016:
https://www.facebook.com/sabhlok/posts/10154118660533767 and here. Extract from the latter comment:
Human needs are infinite. As one gets sorted out, other needs come to the fore. There’s NEVER a shortage of things that people, whether skilled or unskilled, can do.
Technologists don’t have the slightest clue about economics and make a song and dance about this thing. Ignore them.
I’m not by any means implying that there will not be massive job loss from the current structure of the economy. I’m also not implying that everyone who loses their job will get a fancy new job.
I’m saying that there will never be a shortage of jobs to do.
The ONLY reason people won’t work is because the government stops them from working.
Today, for instance, Australia stops people from working because it offers them a pension at age 67. This means it doesn’t make sense to work and save money because the more you save the more you lose the pension.
Similarly, minimum wages stop people from working.
Basic income will create an astounding barrier to work incentives, and most people will stop working. That’s how unemployment will be generated, **not** through technological change.
My video of 28 October 2016:
SENSIBLE ECONOMISTS AND THINKERS – WHO OPPOSE BASIC INCOME
Taking the ‘G’ Out of BIG: A Comparative Political Economy Perspective on Basic Income – by Peter J. Boettke and Adam G. Martin
PB argues that BIG is a form of redistribution and that is fundamentally a problem.
“We remain unconvinced that BIG is sufficiently different from other redistributional policies to overcome a well-grounded general mistrust of the welfare state.”
Redistributive policies entail not an exercise in but an abdication of selfgovernance.
BIG policies are no different in this regard.
BIG does not seem to pass either the coherence or the vulnerability tests
And now, Don Bourdeeaux clarifies that he, too, opposes this idea: I Oppose A Universal Basic Income
Universal income would cost the earth Simon Cowan 30 OCTOBER 2015
A Philosophical Economist’s Case against a Government-Guaranteed Basic Income by DAVID R. HENDERSON
Three ways to do a UBI: None are feasible – Scott Sumner
David H. Freedman: Basic Income: A Sellout of the American Dream
And now Bryan Caplan comes out against Basic Income: http://econlog.econlib.org/archives/2017/01/caplan-wilkinso.html
Even Fair Observer: Is a Universal Basic Income a Good Idea?
Basic Income: A Sellout of the American Dream – David H. Freedman
Universal Basic Income Has Been Tried Before. It Didn’t Work. FEE Vijay Menon
THE CONFUSED TYLER COWEN
Why I am increasing skeptical of a universal basic income – Tyler gets confused too often – he seems to not have his basics in place. The idea of a basic income violates the most basic economics. Not just 101, even the definition of economics.
How Free Money Leaves Everyone Poorer: Bill Bonner
It is the problem with all frauds… all cockamamie, jackass redistribution programs… and all something-for-nothing schemes. And it is the same whether you are “stimulating” an economy with artificial, phony-baloney “money”… giving aid to foreign dictators… or handing out free lunches to voters at home. Free money is a blind menace: It ruins the rich and the poor alike. And the more money you apply to the task… the more people you can ruin. Taking money for nothing is an easy habit to get into… and a hard habit to break. [Bonner]
I’M GLAD MISES INSTITUTE IS AGAINST THE COMMUNIST IDEA OF BASIC INCOME
“at the end of the day, someone will have to pay for it. … This whole discussion about UBI reminds us of the following quote by Thomas Jefferson: A government big enough to give you everything you want, is a government big enough to take away everything that you have. [Source]
Further, apposite to this case: “Government is the great fiction, through which everybody endeavors to live at the expense of everybody else.'” — Bastiat
DUNCES AND SOCIALISTS MASQUERADING AS LIBERALS
Some dunces have been distorting the words of Hayek and Friedman to “prove” their communist demands for basic income, e.g.
— Sanjeev Sabhlok (@sabhlok) April 30, 2016
These are the words being distorted:
and, of course, this kind of gibberish: Why Milton Friedman Supported a Guaranteed Income (5 Reasons) NIT has NOTHING to do with “basic income”.
Looks like Cato Institute has joined the bandwagon: The Pragmatic Libertarian Case for a Basic Income Guarantee. These are fake “liberals” who are in their heart nothing but socialists.
An experiment on basic income
https://blog.ycombinator.com/moving-forward-on-basic-income – my comment here. (“Most things in economics don’t need “research”. Deductions from invariant laws of human nature provide rock solid proof.”)
FURTHER BAD IDEAS IN “FAVOUR” OF BASIC INCOME
The problem with most proposals for a universal basic income is they don’t appreciate just how many people that really is
— Simon Cowan (@SimonJCowan) November 20, 2016
@SimonJCowan And what that means later for work ethic, self reliance and relations between state and citizen
— Aphoney Name (@aphoneyname) November 20, 2016
Basic Income, Basic Income Guarantee, BIG, Universal Basic Income, UBI, Friedman, Hayek, falsehoods, wrong understandings, misrepresentations, Singularity network, very bad idea, socialism by stealth
ADDENDUM 2 OCTOBER 2017: Haven’t watched this but support the total and comprehensive demolition of the communist idea of basic income.