This page has been archived and commenting is disabled.
The Next QE? Switzerland Prepares A "Living Wage" Of $2,600 For Every Citizen
With Japan planning a few trillion Yen stimulus plan of airdropping "gift cards" directly to the poor to spur spending (and the virtuous awesomeness of economic utopia), it appears Switzerland is about to go one step further. As Motherboard reports, Switzerland could soon be the world’s first national case study in basic income. Instead of providing a traditional social net - unemployment payments, food stamps, or housing credits - the government would pay every citizen a fixed stipend. The proposed plan would guarantee a monthly income of CHF 2,500, or about $2,600 as of November 2014; meaning every Swiss family can expect an unconditional yearly income of $62,400 without having to work, with no strings attached. What could go wrong?
Switzerland could soon be the world’s first national case study in basic income. Instead of providing a traditional social net—unemployment payments, food stamps, or housing credits—the government would pay every citizen a fixed stipend.
The idea of a living wage has been brewing in the country for over a year and last month, supporters of the movement dumped a truckload of eight million coins outside the Parliament building in Bern. The publicity stunt, which included a five-cent coin for every citizen, came attached with 125,000 signatures. Only 100,000 are necessary for any constitutional amendment to be put to a national vote, since Switzerland is a direct democracy.
The proposed plan would guarantee a monthly income of CHF 2,500, or about $2,600 as of November 2014. That means that every family (consisting of two adults) can expect an unconditional yearly income of $62,400 without having to work, with no strings attached. While Switzerland’s cost of living is significantly higher than the US - a Big Mac there costs $6.72 - it’s certainly not chump change. It’s reasonable income that could provide, at the minimum, a comfortable bare bones existence.
There are pros and cons (well really short term pros and longer-term ugly cons)...
The benefits are obvious (according to the supporters). Such policy would, in one fell swoop, wipe out poverty. By replacing existing government programs, it would reduce government bureaucracy. Lower skilled workers would also have more bargaining power against employers, eliminating the need for a minimum wage. Creative types would then have a platform to focus on the arts, without worrying about the bare necessities. And those fallen on hard times have a constant safety net to find their feet again.
Detractors of the divisive plan also have a point. The effects on potential productivity are nebulous at best. Will people still choose to work if they don’t have to? What if they spend their government checks on sneakers and drugs instead of food and education? Scrappy abusers of the system could take their spoils to spend in foreign countries where their money has more purchasing power, thus providing little to no benefit to Switzerland’s own economy. There’s also worries about the program’s cost and long term sustainability. It helps that Switzerland happens to be one of the richest countries in the world by per capita income.
But of course the muppets that are in power will be gone by then. Is it any wonder the government and central bank are opposed to the Save our Swiss Gold initiative if this is the fiscal plan for the future?
* * *
Given that 60% of American households are already net takers from the government, codifying this in Switzerland is not such a huge surprise for the Keynesian cult.
* * *
We are sure it is obvious what the problems are with this approach... but one quick (rhetorical) question - what do you think will happen to the prices of goods and services if everyone in the country is suddenly flush with $2600 more cash every month? And if $2,600 works - why not $100,000!
Q.E.D.
»
- 31654 reads
- Printer-friendly version
- Send to friend
- advertisements -
No. If you don't pay you get tossed out in the cold.
This is more like future Trekkie Utopian kinda stuff. Let's call it astep in the right direction...
Switzerland has two problems:
1- Knives were very expensive.
2- Knives were very cheap, due to the Chinese.
If it were Swiss citizens, shut the borders again, my repatriaria Gold and send everything else to bitch-who-the-bore!
hehe.
A basic income is simply a return on present and historical investment by the plebs. Yes, we have a right to collect on our own investments, my investment and those of my parents' and grandparents', etc. Take the internet, or telecommunications, or just about any innovaton you can think of, they all start out as tax funded projects. We are the ones that pay those taxes. Then when it reaches a certain point, our fascist government hands it all over to the corporatocracy which then charges us for something we already paid for!
The elite criminals now benefitting from taxpayer money are the ones stealing because the profits from technological advancment belong to society. I believe a basic income is our right! Taxpayers are the ones that should benefit from taxpayer investment. Instead, all profits from the significant increase in productivity via technology we funded is being robbed from us.
I agree people should not receive/steal what they do not invest or work for, but please explain to me why the .001% deserves my hard earned returns on investment??? They are leaches.
This is basically a back door way of forcing a resource based economy with a second tier of capitalism for those that want more than basics. People will always seek to monetize anyway, so a pure resource based economy would probably fail. The current system is obviously unsustainable and based on greed, but there are better human characteristics we could base a system off of, like empathy. Open source has already proven this could work in my opinion. Some would stop working, but with modern automation we do not need everyone to work. Jobs are being automated out of existence as it is and will soon be so few that 90% will starve. If we keep allowing only the .001 to gain financially from technology, we may as well wear our chains and doom our children now.
What he said.
Q.e.d.
So how would we deal with all of the immigrants drawn in by the system? How many millions more before the entire thing collapses?
Only full citizens would be eligible and since all freebie welfare would be eliminated, well......we'd be better off than what is happening now. Or, we could keep doing the same things over and over and over, hoping it will work....
You really don't get it. You're angry at the predator in front of you (corporations the 1%) yet you don't realize there's another one behind you (government). What you propose would centralize power even more. Who would decide how much and from who would they collect? You would literally rush to the arms of the wolves that did this to begin with. In St. Louis, some, some were angry at the police so they decided to riot, loot and destroy their community. The police are corrupt so I'm going to destroy everything including pillars of the community. The world you wish for is fiction and not based in reality. Corruption is the problem not free markets and a meritocracy. Nothing has lifted more out of poverty than the aforementioned. And as far as investments, you already receive dividends. For instance, the Internet you posted this comment on, do your banking, shopping on. You want more. You're entitled. Just another form of greed.
Show me a living wage and I'll show you a $30 loaf of bread. Your standard of living would go down and you would be wholly dependent on the government to raise the wage from time time as they inflate the monetary system. Your standard of living would continue to go down with no hope of breaking free of poverty.
You ignore the new paradigm. Our jobs are not coming back, we can not go backwards to something that worked in the past because technology has changed everything.
The fact is, the 300% increase in productivity that has so enriched the criminal elite was stolen because it should have benefitted everyone. Everyone invested in it. As tech increases, job hours should naturally decrease, while salaries should raise. This would be another way to do it rather than have a basic income.
Government would shrink because their only job would be to issue one check, the power the people gain will shrink the government because power would even out. This is not the only thing that needs changing, but the reason government has become so intrusive is because the power balance is off, people need more power, government less. You speak as if you think corps and our government are different. We live in corporate fascism, the corporations are essentially our government. Take power away from them and they shrink.
You ignore reality, human nature, basic economics, and history. What you think of forward is actually backwards. Someone else's labor is not your right. You are greedy.
Tek, it is you who really don't get it.
First there is the government that takes our stuff.
Second are the corporations and top .001% that take our stuff.
Third is you.
You simply want to put yourself and those who agree with you on that queue, third in line to take our stuff.
All the while you will claim that you are leveling the playing field, protecting us from corruption, keeping the wolves at bay that did this, to break us free of poverty.
This has been done several times in the past 160 years.
No sir. I do not agree.
What you are describing is a Pass-Through LLC liabilty function applied to ownership and legal agency.
Your stance is that if someone paid any monies that were commingled and used even in the smallest amount towards something, then you own it.
You are destroying the notion of property and ownership and are one step away from socialised communism where you own everything that ever had one cent of your tax dollars used in any way in any step over decades of time. Anyone who received a tax refund owes you, anyone on Social Securtiy must do as you say, and so on.
No.
There is only one way to get what you want - eventually you will have to forcably take others property.
The problem is that you, and those like you, will begin with those in the top .0001 but you won't stop there you will move down until you are taking something your neighbour has that you do not.
No, and this is why I am armed.
And when most quit to get on this gravy train where will the funds come from?
Who comes up with this stupid shit?
Stoopid people who think that stoopid shit isn't stoopid.
Usually Delusional Clueless Liberals, Commies and Progressives
Unlike Americans whoe are the 'exceptional' and 'indispensible' people. It may not have occured to you that we are entering era where mudane. soul destroying jobs will be eliminated by a convergence of roboticsm, information systems and the Internet. The notion of labour exchange as the only source of income is not viable. You either value people in a different way or you kill all the excess labour.
Fundamental economic and existential flaw in these assertions. If I have no capital to pay for a robot, and I earn no income to buy what someone else produces with a robot, then my own labour capacity is still of value to me to produce the necessities of life (which don't include TVs, iPads, the internet, etc), same as ever it was.
A person's value comes from what they can do for themselves and others, not from someone else choosing to "value people".
But but...if people can't work at soul sucking Walmart, how will they define themselves?
You want me to perform a task?
Pay me.
You don't want to pay me?
Ask someone else to work for free.
Everyone else wants to work for free? Not my problem.
Pay me.
In open source people work for free because they enjoy it. Imagine a world where people work for enjoyment and challenge rather than because they are debt slaves. THE HORROR!
Their landlord does not, nor does the grocer who needs money to pay for the food they eat.
Open source has very low revenue streams, very low. This is what is happening with Internet and Smartphones. Everyone can do many tasks for free, so they are paid...nothing...and have to sit in the basement of a house of someone who does something that pays money so that the open source person can live cheaply and indulge their volunteer work.
You are describing the current system, ignoring the fact that with a basic income that dynamic changes. Not all of us enjoy this fascist slavery system, nor are we interested in sustaining what is unsustainable.
Yes, it changes. Now everyone sittting in the basement of the house of someone who earns additional income that is not from the basic income, still cannot afford the other things and must live in the basement of a house of someone who produces above and beyond the basic income. The price of the toys those who only collect a basic income prefer to buy, rises to consume most of that basic income. The price of rent, food and utilities rise to consume that basic income as -0- level leaving nothing discretionary.
You are ignoring and underestimating advancements in technology. If we stay on this path, no one will have jobs and the only people with money will be the .001. The plebs have a right to collect on investment same as anyone, that return is currently stolen from us. A 300% gain in productivity, most of it due to technology that the plebs funded. The plebs should gain from it, not the criminal elite.
What investment did the 99% make? They are sitting at home, spending mom and dad's money, their student loan debt, on pizza and smartphones.
There are only two possible solutions:
1) Everyone is out of work
2) Everyone steals the assets of the top and forces them to put them all on the dole
You think it's some utopia.
I think that when everyone is paid to do nothing, that they will do...nothing.
You think they will work and do what they like to do, as though this will move everyone to the top of Maslow.
I think that they will behave like multi-generational welfare recipients and move to the bottom of Maslow.
You think the alternative to Capital City is going to be grand.
I think it is going to look like Section 8 projects.
Wasn't Obama just there.
Gold standard benefit
This is much better than QE you dumb. QE gives money only to the rich, Swiss gives money equally to everyone. And a word to the world central banks: you really want inflation? This is how you get inflation!
With QE, the money goes to the banksters who then LEND it out and demand INTEREST plus principal repayments.
Here the populace get money with no strings attached.
This would be great here in the USSA! Unlike CH, with an unemployment rate of 2-3%, we're in a jobless fake recovery. Get rid of the alphabet soup of benefits (WIC, SNAP, etc) and just hand out a tax free lump sum. This would drain trillions away from Wall Street and the US Military Industrial Complex, and starve the beast! Set the welfare state against the empire and let them fight it out in the streets. Of course, millions of sin documentos from all over latin america would start clamoring for their share of the booty, more amnesties, a real free for all..
Didn't Iran introduce some sort of basic income in 2010 or 2011? Sounds like a terrorist plot to me and the Swiss would be wise to not fall into this trap.
indeed in some of the oil producing countries if you are the natural citizen you dont have to do crap and they pay you some income
In a society where robots have taken all the jobs, this is a great idea!
He who pays the piper calls the tune. Switzerland today, Starnesville tomorrow.
No one cares about my opinion but this is what should be done great idea get rid of all social programs everyone pays taxes no loopholes including all corporations this will never work in USA to many people make to much money on these social programs to much profit is made off of the poor. People dont get it rich benefit from the poor thats most of the problems I could post a list but its to long just a example look at the food stamp program JP Morgan Chase makes a mint off that program,take all banks invoved in the payday loan business getting 300% rates on loans and another 30% on car loans. I tell you all this would work in our country and our living wage would be in a much lower range the 30,000 range.
Think for yorself, but if considered from the perspective of potentially eliminating millions of apparatchik's, I'm down with the idea.
If the worse thing these asshat sociopaths did was to start pissing their increasingly bogus fiat as if it were merely pepper spray, worser displays of derangement already occur daily, and yet their artificial reality pretends on.
Besides..........
I say let it happen. The sooner this shit breaks (globally) the sooner we can start over.
Actually, I thought of something similar but not so extravagant. Send everyone a basic stipend of $25,000 divided in monthly payments. Now you are on your own. You want to buy crack and cheese doodles instead of health insurance and apples? No, problem, just don't expect to get health care at the emergency room or food stamps or housing subsidies unless you truly are medically incapable of doing anything useful.
Oh, you don't want to take that $7 per hour job to live better than the $25,000 we gave you. No problem, go ahead and sit in front of your TV weighing in at 400 lbs. Ooops, sorry you didn't pass the physical exam! Now no insurance company will insure you for less than $50, 000 a year because you refuse to live a responsible life style. Well no subsidy for you, cause you already got your monthly check.
I don't know, have I truly lost my mind?
It might work in Switzerland, a country by and for the Swiss, with common and broad values, the same ethnicity, 4 languages, and values.
They don't allow North Africans or Romanians to move in to fix their plumbing.
Might work...MIGHT...
I haven't real all this, but wonder if the Swiss, with their banker culture aren't just getting out in front of Automation, Robots, loss of jobs, that not everyone will work.
But there is a Right wing against immigration in Switzerland, so must be immigrants.
What can go wrong?
You get too many of fucking Americans immigrating there!
Nice, I just wrote in an earlier thread if you want inflation send citizens a check. Here we go.
It's better than QE, since it's going to every Citizen.
It may help out SME Employers as well. IIRC, they're a next exporter; It's small enough a Country, that Inflation may be proactively curbed - since this doesn't raise costs of goods directly.
This may even help curtail any possible Pensioner Payouts - i.e., lighten up Govt/Private Enterpises' Pension Obligations as well.
More people may take a semester/year off for their Masters, Professional Certifications - perhaps more PhDs may be produced. (I'm presuming that those Degrees are mostly taken by working professionals primarily for Career enhancement).
It's worth noting; and reviewing who scams off the arrangement.
It's easy to see what will happen. Money has no value only what you do has value thus eventually $62400 in Switzerland will become the near equivalent of $0 per year.
Well yeah.
If this money is given only to Swiss people, not to illegal immigrants and so on, and employers allowed to pay the "going rate", these economic migrants would move elsewhere. Obvious.
Print and party like its 1334
Well anyone on wellfare now will probably get that much overall anyway (or equivalent payments). AND, with 2500CHF you do not make "a comfortable bare bone existence". After manditory expenses such as taxes, rent (which is getting insanely high in some places), health care, food, TV-fees (Billag - YES watching TV and listening to radio costs an extra 460 CHF fee per house hold) there's not much left at the end of the month of that 2.5k.
Not that I'm in favor of any such actions, but this already IS pretty much the status quo for many non-working persons in Switzerland.
Oh you mean they will tax that hand out. "Great" idea.
This seems like a tactical referendum sponsored by the Govt and Central Bank. In the next 10 days you will start to hear a lot of "of course, we'd never be able to pay you all this money if the Swiss Gold bunch get a YES in their referendum on the 30th November. So give it thought".
This is a country that voted down 1wk extra holidays, do you really think they would let this through? Surprised if it would get more than 10-15% yes
Most of these things get voted down..
They got 125.000 people to sign. They need 1mln for a referendum and 100k for proposing a bill - they only got enough to propose a bill. Minimum wage had over a milion of signatures and lost with about 30% yes.
BTW It would be an awesome experiment if they could run this in HALF of Switzerland. Though, still I don't think they will be interested in footing the bill of such an experiment.
where can i apply for swiss citizenship ?
I agree with this idea because coming from the UK I can see the problems that a welfare state and minimum wage causes.
A universal benefit as this scheme is often called means every citizen rich or poor receives the same basic allowance paid for out of the natural resources of the country in whch we live. That means also that Government welfare spendng would be NIL. There is no conflict between the 'haves' and have nots' or tax payers and those who live on benefits. Everyone get sthe same. Indeed we havea benefit here called Family Allowance and NHS and state education and all are widely accepted as essential. Family allowance is a small cash benefit paid to all mothers with children. It was designed to pay for essential things like childrens clothes - removing the dependency of children and mohers on feckless fathers.
There would be no welfare deendency since all citizens get the same alowance and have the choice to work. It also means employers would have to pay a wage that attracted workers and not a wage that workers were forced to accept by a welfare system that now promotes zero hours contracts and increasingly work for zero wages.
It means there would be no intergenerational conflict between older workers who are about to retire on full pensions while young workers face a life time of paying those pensions and paying back their own student debt.
Immigration would have to be very strictly controlled as it is in Switzerland but as Switzerland is a true democracy in many ways I think it is resonable for Swiss people to decide they want low tax and a universl benefit. From where I am standing n the UK it looks like a better system than what we have here now.
Just ask yourself one question. From where will the money come?
It is irrelevant
Money will get printed out of thin air of cause and that is not the problem.
the real question is what will you spend the money on ? On things that can be easily produced in sufficient quantities or on something that is in tight supply
what governments could do is to tie the money giveaway to certain products - you only get the extra money if you buy this and that
No it's not irrelevant, and that is exactly why it will not pass in Switzerland.
To oversimplify-
In the US 60% of taxes go to the unaccountable federal government, 20% to the only slightly more accountable state governments, and 20% to the local governments (largely through property taxes), and benefits are dictated entirely at the federal and state levels, where 80% of the money flows, and the state is least accountable to its subjects.
Whereas in Switzerland only 25% of my taxes go the federal government, 36% go the cantonal/state government, and 39% go to the gemeinde/local government and church. Handouts are controlled at the local and cantonal levels where 75% of my tax dollars go, and since I see the benificiaries of my handouts spending my tax dollars in the local gemeinde every day (there are only about 2000 people in the district) - I have a very different perspective on where the $ (CHF) come from and go to.
However, like all the more fucktarded ideas that the fringe nutjobs in the Swiss electorate dream up, this pile of bullshit involves further empowering the Federal government at the expense of the Cantonal and Local/District governments.
Anyone shy of a calculator?
There are around 8 Mio living in Switzerland. Let's do the math:
8 000 000 * 2500 * 12 = 240 000 000 000 CHF
The whole budget is: 64 billions. (see http://www.efv.admin.ch/d/dokumentation/finanzberichterstattung/budget.php) So they would need to raise that 4 times. So I guess it'll be give all you poverty to the government, we'll make it with that for a few years. Then we're all done.
The currente costs for social stuff is: 24 billions. So that would mean it would have to be inflate 10 times.
Stupidness is hardly the proper word for that, even insanity would be an understatement.
If they think they just might print that money. The swiss willl be very surprised how less a CHF will be able to buy in just a few months.
http://www.admin.ch/opc/de/federal-gazette/2014/6551.pdf
The introduction to the published text very clearly mentions raising an ADDITIONAL CHF 153 BILLION IN NEW TAXES.
Why would the costs be included in the current budget, when the initiative has not passed?
My understanding is that this is not the way it would work. A family would be guaranteed $2600 per parent and 1/4th of that for each child. So if the parents work and made less than the guaranteed amount, they would get it topped up by the government. If they make more, they would be taxed higher afor the excess made.
There was a trial of this approach in Canada back in the 70s in Dauphin Manitoba. According to Wikipedia,
"Mincome was an experimental Canadian basic income project that was held in Dauphin, Manitoba during the 1970s. The project, funded jointly by the Manitoba provincial government and the Canadian federal government, began with a news release on February 22, 1974, and was closed down in 1979. The purpose of this experiment was to determine whether a guaranteed, unconditional annual income caused disincentive to work for the recipients, and how great such a disincentive would be.
It allowed every family unit to receive a minimum cash benefit. The results showed a modest impact on labor markets, with working hours dropping one percent for men, three percent for married women, and five percent for unmarried women. However, some have argued these drops may be artificially low because participants knew the guaranteed income was temporary. These decreases in hours worked may be seen as offset by the opportunity cost of more time for family and education. Mothers spent more time rearing newborns, and the educational impacts are regarded as a success. Students in these families showed higher test scores and lower dropout rates. There was also an increase in adults continuing education.
A final report was never issued, but Dr. Evelyn Forget (/f?r??e?/) conducted an analysis of the program in 2009 which was published in 2011. She found that only new mothers and teenagers worked substantially less. Mothers with newborns stopped working because they wanted to stay at home longer with their babies, and teenagers worked less because they weren't under as much pressure to support their families, which resulted in more teenagers graduating. In addition, those who continued to work were given more opportunities to choose what type of work they did. Forget found that in the period that Mincome was administered, hospital visits dropped 8.5 percent, with fewer incidents of work-related injuries, and fewer emergency room visits from car accidents and domestic abuse. Additionally, the period saw a reduction in rates of psychiatric hospitalization, and in the number of mental illness-related consultations with health professionals."
And as another commenter said in another article to explain a bit more,
"Every family received a minimum income depending on its size, and anything they made over that was taxed at 60%, substantially higher than the prevailing income tax rate for low-income earners. The minimum amount set was approximately what the same person or family would earn as welfare recipients with zero income. But unlike traditional Canadian welfare, which one had to in some way qualify for, this project literally handed over free money, no strings attached and to spend as wished, to all those who didn't make their guaranteed income by other means.
Did everybody just stop working, grab a bottle of Moosehead and start watching daytime tv? Nope. Adult males reduced their working time by less than 1% overall. Only two demographics reduced their work hours by any appreciable level: new mothers and teenagers. New moms stayed home longer with their infants, and teens spent more time doing homework and taking additional classes, and dropped out to work less often. Other social consequences were higher grade point averages, an increase in adult education enrolment, fewer hospital visits (both overnight and outpatient), fewer reported cases of domestic abuse, fewer arrests, and less need in the community as a whole for guidance or interventions by social workers, and child protection and mental health professionals.
The program cost $17 million in total, or about $850 per year per participant, including its substantial administrative costs. When the program abruptly ended, no report was ever published. In fact, the raw data was simply put away without analysis, until some academics got hold of it 35 years later. It's currently being databased in preparation for statistical analysis."
So to sum up - the program presented the real possibility of a generally healthier society. Less hospitalization and mental health problems. Parents getting to spend more time with their children. And it didn't break the bank.
It makes an odd kind of sense. The wealthy and powerful are given actual or pseudo "rents" from the system. Why not give the poorer people rents as well?!?
If market forces don't matter because there is always excess supply, then why pretend they do?
Where this will break down is if there is not excess supply of the essentials and price in those essentials cannot be controlled.
I'm surrounded by fucking idiots.
Yeah! Everyone is an idiot except me!!!
Ok, so let's assume you double everybody's income with this $2600 per month and that this allows everyone to halve their working week.
What next when you garbage collector also wants to work only half a week, or your doctor, nurse or policeman does the same?
If this Swiss scheme works, I will be a monkey's uncle.
I can't believe some of you young fucksticks and old fucking libtards are actually thinking this would be an good idea. How fucking stupid are you? Who the fuck needs college, apparently no one is learning. In economics, there is NO FREE LUNCH because someone always pays. Read this brief and simple explaination. https://mises.org/library/how-economy-grows.
I'm surrounded by fucking idiots.
Who said anything about a Free Lunch? I certainly didn't. This would cost a fortune. But it would be offset to a significant degree by the elimination of nearly all social programs. But the returns on investment could be huge.
You really need to explain how giving trillions to the banks is any different than giving it directly to the people, whose spending our entire REAL economy depends. Obviously, the Swiss, who are not known for careless spending programs, think differently about this issue.
Only fucking idiots like yourself with an entirely negative view of human nature would think this to be a free lunch for people who don't want to work. Perhaps you are that kind of person and are simply judging others based on your own behaviour - I'm not, and I would say most people are not. Most people want to feel that they are doing something productive with their lives.
Can you not see circular reasoning?
"I cannot give you a pay rise because you do not produce enough."
"But I operate a machine that lets one man do the job of ten men. How is it that I STILL do not produce enough?"
"Yes, but I cannot increase my prices because workers are too poor and cannot afford to pay higher prices."
How about, "Have mercy Your Honour. I know I killed my parents but now I'm an orphan."
And as long as you keep reading that Mises crap you will continue to be surrounded by idiots. But you can get over that Mises crap if you use your fucking brain and recognize the disconnect between bullshit capitalist ideology and the real world.
Here is the ZH ref to that fish story. Make sure you read the article before reading my comment. Pay special attention to what it has to say about greed, then look at my comment 5320184:
... What is Able's surname? Is it Squid?
http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2014-10-10/how-saving-grows-economy#commen...
The fish story is a great place to start but no place to finish. You need to question ALL of the underlying assumptions. In the fish story, anyone could opt out. How easy is it for you to opt out?
In the fish story, Abel used his own sacrifice to produce. In the real world, entrepreneurs borrow other people's money. Hardly the same sacrifice. Or try my comment at
http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2014-10-10/how-saving-grows-economy#commen...
- not such a dumb or cynical comment when you consider that the real-world stats say that 80% of new businesses go broke in their first year.
I like the book. I bought a copy for myself and I read it. But you have to keep your brain turned on after you have read it and think harder.
How about this?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LLr5oWfoWRY&list=UUIjuLiLHdFxYtFmWlbTGQRQ
$15 per hour pay for minimum wage workers (100% increase at the time) translates to 15% inflation? That is Schiff's figures, not mine. What's not to like? Keep doing that till you run out of resources (or, more likely, the jobs go off shore but we're talking Walmart here, most the jobs are already off-shore ;) ). How does that story relate to the Swiss idea? Well, maybe the correlation between money increases and inflation isn't as direct as you imply. The simplest explanation is that all costs are ultimately labour costs and so, if prices adjust proportionately then no-one should be better or worse off, no matter what level of money is in the system. But then we haven't factored in debt (or savings). Inflation dilutes debt, therefore increasing purchasing power all round (except for savers and banksters). So much for theory. What are savers getting right now? When does wage increases translate to inflation? When production cannot keep up. Is govt handouts from magic printed money inflationary or deflationary? Why should it inflate prices when producers no longer have to pay the first $31k in wages because it is guaranteed by govt? When producers are forced to pay higher wages, that is inflationary but when govt pays those increases, that is also inflationary? Will the producers never increase supply in order to keep up with demand? Not even when the cost of keeping workers decreases?
What if you give the workers pay-cuts? Using the 15 for 15 Schiff example, fore-going doubling the minimum wage (i.e 50% pay cut) means prices did NOT go up by 15% (prices ~ 15% cheaper, .15/1.15 to get the real figure). Winning?
Under capitalist propaganda dogma, there are two types of people and never the twain shall meet:
Lazy workers who won't do anything except to avoid starvation.
Genius entrepreneurs who need incentives or else they won't provide jobs.
(In the real world we have Donald Trump writing in his book, The Art Of The Deal : "I don't do it for the money. I have far more than I will ever need ...")
Under capitalist propaganda dogma, workers never save a few bucks and use that to start their own business. They never need a track record. They either magically have the capital already or they BORROW start-up capital. "Trouble with kids today, they don't take risks" - capitalist propaganda from the '90s which quickly evolved into "They need to manage their risks". What risk? They borrowed money and didn't know how to pay it back? That risk? You minimize that risk by starting with savings which you earnt from a job. If it paid enough.
Capitalist propaganda: The CEO always deserves his profits and will re-invest it into production. Workers will never produce anything of their own. Guess that's true if the workers never earn enough to save and are risk averse - i.e. won't borrow what they don't know how to pay back.
So a CEO uses his gains to bid $40M for a mansion that otherwise would have sold for $30M. Winning? Better than 10 000 employees with an extra $1k in their pockets?
Wage rises lead to inflation? Is everything really running at 100% capacity? As I mentioned before, if production is below capacity then extra demand will spread overheads across greater production therefore decreasing unit cost.
But all this babble is insignificant in the world today. The dominant problem is Ponzi debt. As long as banksters get free money and lend it to idiots, those idiots bid up the price of real estate to unsustainable levels and all inflation gets "buried in the ground", be it the price of land for workers, retailers, factories, supermarkets, wholesalers or the CEO who bids the price of a $30M mansion up to $40M. As long as old idiots can keep on borrowing or are replaced by new idiots, as long as the banks that service the idiots keep getting bailed out, all the newly-created money will end up being "buried in the ground" and with a huge debt and interest bill left above ground for some schmuck to service.
I've read Mises Institute and they're a bunch of idiots.
I like Schiff but I don't agree with everything he says. ( He can also be quite assertive at times without providing any information, even when he's right. I don't like that. Guess he doesn't want to give away all his secrets. )
I listened to all the pro-capitalist crap for 20 years before I started calling them out on their lies. Capitalism is a good idea but it has devolved into a religious cult. Use your own brain. Look at the real world. Question the assumptions.
I can't say the Swiss idea will work. I can't say it won't work. I could agree that it shouldn't be the proposed solution ... excepting as that other guy said, we got machines that allow one man to do the job of a hundred. Why should we get surprised if 99 are out of work? Should we produce 100 times more? Should we work one week every two years instead of every week? Work 0.4 hours per week? Okay, some jobs still take one man hour, to do one man hour but on the whole it averages lower. With all our technology, why is everyone still working so hard?
We give trillions of dollars to the bankers of this world in the hope that they will loan it out and spur the economy. This of course has never worked as the bankers simply gamble it all away and we have to bail them out. Yet we continue to feed them money hoping the next time it will work. You know what Einstein had to say about such an approach.
What we fail to remember, however, is that this is at its core a 'conser' society, relying upon the purhcases of millions of little folks to spur the economy and grow wealth in the process. The one thing we have NEVER tried is probably the one thing that we SHOULD have tried in the first place - give those trillions to the mases and let them start spending. Spending will spur the economy, cause businesses to grow and requrie more workers and expand facilities. We worry about the inflationary effects of such an approach, but think about it carefully - if production grows accordingly, then there is no inflation.
Yes, a portion of the population will choose to stay at home and rot on the couch. But most people are not like that. People want to be productive. They want to work. There is pride in work. Those who think weveryone will sit on their ass are simply wrong. And for those that do want to work, there should be plenty of it available since people are now spending money and businesses need to expand. This will of course mean real rises in wages as businesses compete for workers. And it means more taxes for the government to support all those people. And who knows, perhaps there will even be enough money to expand the number of wars we are engaged in!
I believe the Swiss are on to something. We need to keep an eye on them and see where this leads.
I'm surrounded by fucking idiots.
Then get out of the Hall Of Mirrors.
"Can't increase production because I don't have any money."
"Can't raise my prices because my customers are too poor."
Workers = Customers.
Your Workers = Someone Else's Customers.
Someone Else's Workers = Your Customers.
Unless you make stuff in China and sell it to the US. Geographic Wage Arbitrage = Unlimited rich customers provided by someone else until they all lose their jobs.
Yes, it ain't a sin for a capitalist to get filthy rich and end up owning all the money. Just don't expect him to have any customers next week.
Free market wage does NOT necessarily translate into ideal wage for maximum production. Who makes your shoes? Who picks your coffee beans? What do they get paid? Free market wage = bowl of porridge / rice and bed on the factory floor* What do those workers buy from you?
*Don't believe me? Maybe, maybe not. But those are the workers who were using our you-beaut productivity enhancing machine before my boss got one. ( ~ 18 year old story ). Boss told us about it when he saw it in action.
"Spending will spur the economy" - this is putting the cart before the horse. The spending must be paid for somehow. Economies don't grow because of "spending". Production doesn't swing magically into action because there is more spending. The exact opposite is true: production requires saving, not spending. It is not spending that grows the economy, but saving, investment and production.
Production grows the economy. Production is what matters.
Who pays for the production? Borrowers? Savers?
Build a car factory in Ethiopia. Who buys the cars? Ethiopians? They built them. Surely they can afford to buy what they built!!!
But the customers in US are richer. Geographic Wage Arbitrage.
In order for the Ethiopians to buy the cars that they themselves built, do their wages have to go up? Or down?
Or have I added an unnecessary level of complexity to the question?
"Can't build a car factory because I have no money."
"Can't build a car factory because no-one can afford to buy the cars."
Don't you need a bit of both?
WTF.
Guaranteed $5200 per household per month, FROM THIS MONTH.
And you can continue working on top of this?
So that's your $5200 physical gold and silver plan in place. Result.
This is such bullshit.
What could go wrong? Math skills. $2600*12mos=$62400/yr.
Copy/paste. Duhhh
$2600*12=$31200...
Oops x family of 2 = $62400
Oh my duhh...family of two. My reading skills be slippin
Got me too.
I've once done the math for my country and the basis income you can pay per citizen is very low, it's very bad news for pensioners and people who really need benefits like disabled. The Swiss proposal is pure madness.
Maybe it can work in the future when humans are largely replaced by technology in the workplace (it's already starting to happen) but I don't think the transition will be pretty.
Does your math take into account the real scam which has the FED printing in ZIRP mode 85% of the money going to the Oligarchs and the rest trickles down via government programs to the 99%.
You complain about 15 % of the freely printed wealth (just using this as a symbol of current monetary/financial distribution of GDP going to the people).
I am sure MY math is not wrong in this assumption. The MIC/Oligarchy economy is eating up 85% of the phoney baloney $ denominated wealth distributed day in day out to the upper percantile portion of the national population (90%).
So...What about the 85 % free lunch going to the Oligarchs. How does your MATH deal with that?
... that is also bad.
As usual, the liberals have a great deal of difficulty thinking things through to their logical conclusion.
It's known as "Gruber 101".
Let's assume that we are shareholders of the US of A. We all get a cut.
Fine. Now follow me kids, liberals, and retards....
For any plan to work, 3 things must mesh together as envisioned:
THEORY.........IMPLEMENTATION.........REALITY.
Theory: fine. Anyone can have one. Let's play.
Implementation: since communism already fell (which is what this is, from each to each...and if you do not grasp this, you are too far gone even by Gruber's standards)....you realize quite quickly that someone has to be in charge of doling out these resources. FAR from getting rid of workers doling out free shit, it will expand exponentially. And I am sure the 20 million illegals (and the rest of the 3rd world) won't try and defraud for free shit. And let's not forget those at the top. Since. They get first cut. I'm sure their magnanimity will shine right through!
Reality: I could go on and on.....but we already have tried this before and seen the consequences. Which makes those who propose it even more stupid than I give them credit for. They should know better.
Google "Great Society" and use what is left of your drug-addled, idealistic mind to try and see the differences that occured between what was intended (not even counting the conspiracies) and the actual result. In short....when the takers outnumber the makers...a death spiral results. This is on clear display all over the country. Go visit these utopian paradises. Before you go, make your life insurance policies out to me. I'll pay you extra to cover your premiums.
I cannot help anyone who subscribes to thinking that in this manner. I learned long ago not to separate a person from their actions. Otherwise you have a world full of fools. And those utopian paradises are full of them as it is. For your edification.
Have fun working for free. Or keep waiting for that free shit to come in.
At least you get to pick that.
It is way too early in the morning to begin harming my brian with this drivel.
If 2600 a month is a good idea, then 450,000 a week would be what? Nirvana?
Please, just take me out back and shoot me like an old donkey.
Swiss not to fear the Chinese are coming......for your stuff
http://newworldorderg20.wordpress.com/2014/11/18/chinas-hebei-iron-takes-control-of-swiss-duferco-international-trading-holding/
Logical, force feeding of some trickle down wealth to 99% class in a world of Oligarchy scamming.
That should send a signal that the table has to get levelled in first world.
When the markets and the crony governments are aligned to force feed the banks and Oligarchs, somebody has to STEP OUT OF LINE to force feed in the OTHER DIRECTION.
As those markets, now dark pooled and TBTF controlled, are not going to give to the people their natural rights, all bamboozled in crony baloney capitalism.
Hey, somebody has to start the see-saw moving and it aint gonna be the tea party! Nor the Miserly Austerity deniers.
We need massive debt jubilee in the banksta/crony political Oligarchy/MiC warmongering/Micro petromonarchy/ world Corpocracy "gone mad" spheres, to save whats left of the future generation's badly baked economic environment going to the dogs faster than you can say "Eureka".
There was an experiment in a place called Voergl in Austria . The city issued money to all citizens . The money was only valid for a month . In this way the economy was re started and the experiment was a great success . But the government in Vienna did not like it and stopped the experiment .
I think that the Swiss initiative has great merit . With increasing computerization and robotization of work achieving full employment in a nation is a pipe dream .
So, new ways must be found to share remaining work , reducing the working hours and keep the people occupied . With an assured income coming regularly , it is possible that people might be more willing to start up new companies .
It certainly beats receiving lousy food stamps that make people feel helpless and useless .
Please read
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wörgl
Oz, this is apples and oranges.
I'm surrounded by idiots.
Even better...pay people their own surplus...if they work. The "Single Tax" is what they need. So does every other nation. The Single Tax says tax assets, NOT INCOME. That means the burden of taxation is always on the owners of the nation's wealth producing assets to make the highest and best use of those assets or lose them through taxation.
Those assets would find true value as the slugs of society would sell their idle land and building to someone smart enough to produce a product AT TAX FREE INCOME...since the Single Tax does not allow income to be taxed...only assets. That would also end all bubbles. Asset speculators or other parasites would never hold onto assets waiting for OTHERS to produce value. America's founding fathers envisioned this entirely and, in fact, the USA never had an income tax until 1913. The USA became an economic powerhouse under this variation. The rich and power elite bamboozled the nation into an income tax for "everyone" even though THEY still controlled the wealth producing assets.
We know that income taxes are "progressive" and the poor pay no taxes. That is well understood?
When your plumber presents his bill, he calculates how much will satisfy him to perform the work including expenses, and how much will pay those taxes that he incurs in performing his work. Who pays the tax? It is clear that the customer always supplies the necessary money.
This applies to all taxation in the supply of goods and services, and is equivalent to a general tax on personal consumption. Employee and corporate taxes are entirely paid by the end customer in the supply chain.
In the real world, income is what can be spent and that is when it is really taxed, rich or poor. The income tax system is a complete waste of effort, since every attempt to refine the system makes no difference in the long run. It could be replaced by a simple consumption tax with exactly the same outcome. Its existence is really a political gesture, that allows voters to be swayed one way or the other and their ignorance is bliss.
A universal stipend to offset the inherent hidden tax on basic necessities would be a logical first step, and universal because assessing individual income would be not worth the effort.
Indeed, why not just tax consumption in plain view? It would only reflect the current reality, that everyone pays tax, and at the same general rate. It would reflect that wealth redistribution is largely impossible in a free market. It would expose the enormous cost of the state, that our present tax system, so constructed, very easily hides. It would end the misrepresentation of who bears the burden of taxation. It would empower voters to push for reduced taxation and an end to irresponsible spending. And our huge tax industry, inside and outside government, could be more productively employed.
Originally income tax only impacted the top 1% of incomes. The whole point was to tax unearned income, that is income NOT from current employment (also known as the free lunch). Doing so puts the brakes on the financialized economy and decreases the price of assets, which in the end, decreases the costs of doing business. That makes sense, since the free lunch has to come from other people ponying up the money for this financialzed asset milking.
Guys,
You need to understand this is actually a downgrade. I have a friend who has not worked since 2007, is on social programs since 2007 and gets 30k+ a year.
This law wikll NEVER PASS.
A Swiss citizen.
Unless the people vote for their gold back.
Then of course no free bucks.
See how easy that was........
Give everybody a living wage? Ever been to a zoo of captive animals? Yeah, real interesting...
If this flies, along with a YES for the gold initiative, I'm moving to Switzerland.
People don't get it. The enormous productivity gains we have accomplished (we, as in the legacy of previous generations) accrue only to the owners of capital. Since the amount of human labour required is shrinking and the ownership of that capital is concentrating, there is a continual shift of purchasing power to the ownership of capital. Without rebalancing, the population will shrink (die off) amidst plenty. There is no point to working for a living if the value produced can easily be matched by automatic production with cheaper inputs. If the benefits to progress are not distributed more generally we are on a dead end road.
The idea that no one will work if there is a basic income is preposterous. I have yet to meet a complainer about social benefits who is willing to trade his job for the lucrative free money. The system works with tax credits, so there is not an explosion of purchasing power. It is simply a more rational form of the existing system which puts a lot of constraints and irrational demands (by bureaucrats) on people for whom there is no gainful employment. These people will be free to deploy activities that do or may eventually have social value instead of forced idling.
They will be for the first time truly free people. Finally someone who realizes we can't go backwards because tech has changed the entire paradigm.
They can afford it .
You are about 3 times richer than you think .
See
https://www.academia.edu/9405720/The_Economics_of_Disrespect_Update_I
or
http://andreswhy.blogspot.com/2014/11/the-economics-of-disrespect-update...
If this passes the fucking illegal aliens can have America, I am moving to Switzerland!
I am fairly productive and useful in my professional life, I service a wide range of public and private business/govt clients with a broad spectrum of services.
I would quit in a fucking heartbeat, collect my free shit and let the whole motherfucker ROT...
All I need to make that happen is 2600.00 cash a month.
(significantly less than I make, but would offset the BS my a mile)
Then after a month you would start to go stir crazy. After that and becuase you are for the first time truly free, you would find something productive you actually like to do. That little bit from, not all, but most, combined with advancing tech, will be plenty to sustain everyone. Jobs are not coming back once the robots have them, we can't go back to what used to work.
Now that's an idea that Obama would like to liberally steal! Gruber, get to work on it!
This is out of date. The Swiss overwhelmingly voted this down by refrendum last year.
You forgot this is a right-wing propagabda site?
The 1% if smart should support this with their full force as it keeps the steals going. This is a valve to defuse explosion of social upheavals. It is also far more efficient without all the BS mean tests, programs, etc where a huge bureaucracy and parasites eat up the direct payments.
Peak greek.
People need to start realizing....our jobs are not coming back, we can not go backwards to something that worked in the past because technology has changed everything. Constant growth in a world with only limited resources has to end eventually. The current path will see 95% starving on the streets while a small criminal elite live as kings.
You can repeat your misbelievings like a mantra, and they still are misbeliefings.l It's not about constant growth, it's about serving customers and there is not shortage on work by any means. Just look around the many clean cars, the many gardens, the many models, hobbies and so on an on. Even people working do spend a lot of extra time on some out of the job work. And for many of them this is more important than anything else. There is never no practical limit on the sheer number of work, and with every man added new work willl be carried out. Why did we reach such a broad base of wealth? How comes that now 7.5 billion can inhabit this earth? How comes that so many less than in the pase die of starvation? It's always this believe that there is too much or whatever, It's also the green thinking, I may live as comfortable as I wish, but don't dare anyone else to live that luxurious as me.
And no we won't see 95 % starving, because we'll be stupid enough to follow our leaders into the next big war. And therewor get slaughtered, before that will happen. Don't you see how they push for new wars?