Should Basic Income Guarantee be introduced to tackle the present Pandemic e n
-
- Posts: 1133
- Joined: October 23rd, 2019, 4:48 pm
Should Basic Income Guarantee be introduced to tackle the present Pandemic e n
With so many citizens financially stressed, many governments would: 1. Delay/cancel tax payment; 2. Refund tax payment; 3. Introduce emergency benefit; 4. Pay 50% to 80% of wage through employer subject to no firing. Measures to help employers would also run in parallel.
Introducing so many different measures within such a short time span, apart from being administratively difficult and costly, can be duplicative and confusing to the public. A better approach may be to introduce Basic Income Guarantee (BIG or GBI) instead. The most recent pilot basic Income program was undertaken in Canada, giving 4000 Ontario residents living in poverty C$17,000 a year or C$24,00 per couple. They can keep half of their income from any job they have. Federally it was suggested in April 17, 2018 that this would cost roughly C$43 billion a year. No doubt a lot of money for any government to afford, but drastic time creates drastic demand to be satisfied. In the end, the Canadian Government may find the bill to their present piecemeal and ad hoc measures not much less than C$43. If so, why not have this neat, clear-cut, and fair policy introduced, for other governments all over the world to follow as a good example?
- h_k_s
- Posts: 1243
- Joined: November 25th, 2018, 12:09 pm
- Favorite Philosopher: Aristotle
- Location: Rocky Mountains
Re: Should Basic Income Guarantee be introduced to tackle the present Pandemic e n
This is certainly a very timely question with the current business downturn due to the lockdowns everywhere across the world because of the COVID-19 Chinese bat virus.gad-fly wrote: ↑April 9th, 2020, 2:41 pm Serious concern on the widespread shut-down of the economy, caused by the present pandemic, has led to panic moves by governments all over the world. It can be appreciated that governments have no choice but to take stop-gap measures, like shooting now and finding out who has been shot later. It follows that those moaning and groaning loudest would usually be prioritized for salvage without regard to fairness and consequence. The petroleum sector is one such example in Canada.
With so many citizens financially stressed, many governments would: 1. Delay/cancel tax payment; 2. Refund tax payment; 3. Introduce emergency benefit; 4. Pay 50% to 80% of wage through employer subject to no firing. Measures to help employers would also run in parallel.
Introducing so many different measures within such a short time span, apart from being administratively difficult and costly, can be duplicative and confusing to the public. A better approach may be to introduce Basic Income Guarantee (BIG or GBI) instead. The most recent pilot basic Income program was undertaken in Canada, giving 4000 Ontario residents living in poverty C$17,000 a year or C$24,00 per couple. They can keep half of their income from any job they have. Federally it was suggested in April 17, 2018 that this would cost roughly C$43 billion a year. No doubt a lot of money for any government to afford, but drastic time creates drastic demand to be satisfied. In the end, the Canadian Government may find the bill to their present piecemeal and ad hoc measures not much less than C$43. If so, why not have this neat, clear-cut, and fair policy introduced, for other governments all over the world to follow as a good example?
Such a draconian socialist approach as a "basic income guarantee" does not seem to fit in with the western capitalist nations' economic philosophies inherited from John Locke the economic philosopher of the 1700's.
And it did not work for the Russian Communists either, nor for the European Eastern Bloc prior to 1991.
So my personal view is that only a temporary safety net such as unemployment payments are appropriate in capitalist societies like North America and Europe.
Eating bats in China has now killed thousands of people both inside and outside of China. It will soon catch up with the millions killed from AIDS that resulted from eating monkeys in Africa.
People should have listened to Moses and stuck to the kosher rules of the Tenakh. Bats and monkeys are definitely NOT kosher.
-
- Posts: 25
- Joined: October 16th, 2019, 3:32 am
Re: Should Basic Income Guarantee be introduced to tackle the present Pandemic e n
For instance, let's say you approve UBI, what's the first thing that's going to happen? People who are homeless or have poor housing situation will immediately use the money to upgrade and move to a nicer, bigger house (or one that is closer to work or points of interest).
But since everyone has UBI, demand for higher quality housing will essentially explode and cause pressurre on the prices to go up. Way more people now compete for a limited housing stock so prices go higher. The same will likely apply to other big and small ticket purchases.
Once the dust settles, you're essentially back you came, except that now your country's finances are torn to pieces and you can't remove the UBI without causing a revolution.
-
- Posts: 1133
- Joined: October 23rd, 2019, 4:48 pm
Re: Should Basic Income Guarantee be introduced to tackle the present Pandemic e n
On Easter Saturday, the Canadian House of Commons unanimously approved Emergency Wage Subsidy Benefit amounting to 75% workers' wage to keep employers laying them off. The subsidy, retroactive to March 15, will cost $73 billion, which dwarfs the "draconian socialist approach of Basic Income Guarantee" at $43 billion, as estimated in 2018. The difference likely stems from the former benefiting according to percentage, whereas the latter would benefit uniformly on recognized poverty/basic level.h_k_s wrote: ↑April 11th, 2020, 10:57 pmThis is certainly a very timely question with the current business downturn due to the lockdowns everywhere across the worldgad-fly wrote: ↑April 9th, 2020, 2:41 pm Serious concern on the widespread shut-down of the economy, caused by the present pandemic, has led to panic moves by governments all over the world. It can be appreciated that governments have no choice but to take stop-gap measures, like shooting now and finding out who has been shot later. It follows that those moaning and groaning loudest would usually be prioritized for salvage without regard to fairness and consequence. The petroleum sector is one such example in Canada.
With so many citizens financially stressed, many governments would: 1. Delay/cancel tax payment; 2. Refund tax payment; 3. Introduce emergency benefit; 4. Pay 50% to 80% of wage through employer subject to no firing. Measures to help employers would also run in parallel.
Introducing so many different measures within such a short time span, apart from being administratively difficult and costly, can be duplicative and confusing to the public. A better approach may be to introduce Basic Income Guarantee (BIG or GBI) instead. The most recent pilot basic Income program was undertaken in Canada, giving 4000 Ontario residents living in poverty C$17,000 a year or C$24,00 per couple. They can keep half of their income from any job they have. Federally it was suggested in April 17, 2018 that this would cost roughly C$43 billion a year. No doubt a lot of money for any government to afford, but drastic time creates drastic demand to be satisfied. In the end, the Canadian Government may find the bill to their present piecemeal and ad hoc measures not much less than C$43. If so, why not have this neat, clear-cut, and fair policy introduced, for other governments all over the world to follow as a good example?
Such a draconian socialist approach as a "basic income guarantee" does not seem to fit in with the western capitalist nations' economic philosophies inherited from John Locke the economic philosopher of the 1700's.
So my personal view is that only a temporary safety net such as unemployment payments are appropriate in capitalist societies like North America and Europe.
The former's administrative cost will be more, since each employee will receive his specific amount, presumably computed and distributed through his employer. It will also take more time to process the "emergency", when time is of the essence to many.
As I have said, drastic time calls for drastic measures. Emergency relief on the pandemic is essential. How? This is the timely and crucial question. It falls on us to debate and offer public opinion, instead of blaming government afterwards for the mess created by panic moves. Comment from you all are invited.
- h_k_s
- Posts: 1243
- Joined: November 25th, 2018, 12:09 pm
- Favorite Philosopher: Aristotle
- Location: Rocky Mountains
Re: Should Basic Income Guarantee be introduced to tackle the present Pandemic e n
Being temporary this sounds (looks, walks, and quacks) like UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE PAYMENTS. As I said, unemployment makes more sense.gad-fly wrote: ↑April 12th, 2020, 12:12 pmOn Easter Saturday, the Canadian House of Commons unanimously approved Emergency Wage Subsidy Benefit amounting to 75% workers' wage to keep employers laying them off. The subsidy, retroactive to March 15, will cost $73 billion, which dwarfs the "draconian socialist approach of Basic Income Guarantee" at $43 billion, as estimated in 2018. The difference likely stems from the former benefiting according to percentage, whereas the latter would benefit uniformly on recognized poverty/basic level.h_k_s wrote: ↑April 11th, 2020, 10:57 pm
This is certainly a very timely question with the current business downturn due to the lockdowns everywhere across the world
Such a draconian socialist approach as a "basic income guarantee" does not seem to fit in with the western capitalist nations' economic philosophies inherited from John Locke the economic philosopher of the 1700's.
So my personal view is that only a temporary safety net such as unemployment payments are appropriate in capitalist societies like North America and Europe.
The former's administrative cost will be more, since each employee will receive his specific amount, presumably computed and distributed through his employer. It will also take more time to process the "emergency", when time is of the essence to many.
As I have said, drastic time calls for drastic measures. Emergency relief on the pandemic is essential. How? This is the timely and crucial question. It falls on us to debate and offer public opinion, instead of blaming government afterwards for the mess created by panic moves. Comment from you all are invited.
-
- Posts: 1133
- Joined: October 23rd, 2019, 4:48 pm
Re: Should Basic Income Guarantee be introduced to tackle the present Pandemic e n
Panic Moves seem to be the norm with governments focusing on unemployment during the present pandemic. In Hong Kong the wage subsidy is 50%, against 75% in Canada costing C$73 billion. But the problem does not end there. Employers cannot dismiss in order to receive the benefit, but can they not reduce wage? One thing is sure, though. Pay 50% wage benefit, and allow wage reduction of 50%, and everything can be as good as new. If 50% benefit and 10% allowable wage reduction, be prepared for another panic move.gad-fly wrote: ↑April 12th, 2020, 12:12 pm
On Easter Saturday, the Canadian House of Commons unanimously approved Emergency Wage Subsidy Benefit amounting to 75% workers' wage to keep employers laying them off. The subsidy, retroactive to March 15, will cost $73 billion, which dwarfs the "draconian socialist approach of Basic Income Guarantee" at $43 billion, as estimated in 2018. The difference likely stems from the former benefiting according to percentage, whereas the latter would benefit uniformly on recognized poverty/basic level.
The former's administrative cost will be more, since each employee will receive his specific amount, presumably computed and distributed through his employer. It will also take more time to process the "emergency", when time is of the essence to many.
As I have said, drastic time calls for drastic measures. Emergency relief on the pandemic is essential. How? This is the timely and crucial question. It falls on us to debate and offer public opinion, instead of blaming government afterwards for the mess created by panic moves. Comment from you all are invited.
Is employment, or unemployment, that important in this crisis? In a free labor market, employment is functional on supply and demand. With deep recession brought along by the economy shutting down, subsidizing wage is no more than expensive window dressing to fool the public. When the jobs are not there, it is futile to cover up by employing workers to flip file, shift muck, or hanging around chatting to one another at some distance.
What can be more appropriate than to tackle the problem direct by helping hardship cases evenly and universally. I can see nothing better than Basic Income Guarantee (BIG) for all citizens, with Basic defined at poverty level. Understandably the high-wage unemployed will be hurt more, but this is a drastic time when the bottom line is for all to endure and last until the sun shines again. The bill, as can be witnessed in Canada, is only C$43 billion as inflated from 2 years ago. If Canada can do it, no doubt other countries can too.
- Marvin_Edwards
- Posts: 1106
- Joined: April 14th, 2020, 9:34 pm
- Favorite Philosopher: William James
- Contact:
Re: Should Basic Income Guarantee be introduced to tackle the present Pandemic e n
I agree that the solution should be kept simple. In theory, we already have all the parts in place for welfare and unemployment insurance. To keep it simple we could stick with those. But we'd have to ramp up the bureaucracy to handle the swell of claims. I believe assistance should be means-tested, rather than a general benefit for everyone.gad-fly wrote: ↑April 9th, 2020, 2:41 pm Serious concern on the widespread shut-down of the economy, caused by the present pandemic, has led to panic moves by governments all over the world. It can be appreciated that governments have no choice but to take stop-gap measures, like shooting now and finding out who has been shot later. It follows that those moaning and groaning loudest would usually be prioritized for salvage without regard to fairness and consequence. The petroleum sector is one such example in Canada.
With so many citizens financially stressed, many governments would: 1. Delay/cancel tax payment; 2. Refund tax payment; 3. Introduce emergency benefit; 4. Pay 50% to 80% of wage through employer subject to no firing. Measures to help employers would also run in parallel.
Introducing so many different measures within such a short time span, apart from being administratively difficult and costly, can be duplicative and confusing to the public. A better approach may be to introduce Basic Income Guarantee (BIG or GBI) instead. The most recent pilot basic Income program was undertaken in Canada, giving 4000 Ontario residents living in poverty C$17,000 a year or C$24,00 per couple. They can keep half of their income from any job they have. Federally it was suggested in April 17, 2018 that this would cost roughly C$43 billion a year. No doubt a lot of money for any government to afford, but drastic time creates drastic demand to be satisfied. In the end, the Canadian Government may find the bill to their present piecemeal and ad hoc measures not much less than C$43. If so, why not have this neat, clear-cut, and fair policy introduced, for other governments all over the world to follow as a good example?
-
- Posts: 1133
- Joined: October 23rd, 2019, 4:48 pm
Re: Should Basic Income Guarantee be introduced to tackle the present Pandemic e n
Among various Wage Subsidy programs, Canada would pay 75%, and Hong Kong would pay less, at 50%. Perhaps the shrewdest place in the world as far as free trading, democratic struggle, and wearing mask are concerned, Hong Kong's program is fraught with questions and challenge once announced. What about the (unethical?) wage reduction by employers after receiving the benefit for their employees? The Government has confirmed nothing can be done about that. What about those fired recently but earlier and are now unemployed? We shall take care of that later, not that they are less urgent. Would you as an employee give half to your boss? No? You are fired. Is it against the law to help your boss also in distress? No. it is ethical. No doubt you do not want to be fired. Besides, half wage is better than no wage, unless you can find another job somewhere else.Marvin_Edwards wrote: ↑April 15th, 2020, 10:36 pmI agree that the solution should be kept simple. In theory, we already have all the parts in place for welfare and unemployment insurance. To keep it simple we could stick with those. But we'd have to ramp up the bureaucracy to handle the swell of claims. I believe assistance should be means-tested, rather than a general benefit for everyone.gad-fly wrote: ↑April 9th, 2020, 2:41 pm
With so many citizens financially stressed, many governments would: 1. Delay/cancel tax payment; 2. Refund tax payment; 3. Introduce emergency benefit; 4. Pay 50% to 80% of wage through employer subject to no firing. Measures to help employers would also run in parallel.
Introducing so many different measures within such a short time span, apart from being administratively difficult and costly, can be duplicative and confusing to the public. A better approach may be to introduce Basic Income Guarantee (BIG or GBI) instead. The most recent pilot basic Income program was undertaken in Canada, giving 4000 Ontario residents living in poverty C$17,000 a year or C$24,00 per couple. They can keep half of their income from any job they have. Federally it was suggested in April 17, 2018 that this would cost roughly C$43 billion a year. No doubt a lot of money for any government to afford, but drastic time creates drastic demand to be satisfied. In the end, the Canadian Government may find the bill to their present piecemeal and ad hoc measures not much less than C$43. If so, why not have this neat, clear-cut, and fair policy introduced, for other governments all over the world to follow as a good example?
The relief programs should be kept simple, to keep administrative cost down. But it is more than that. They should be quick, even, universal, and fair. Drastic time requires drastic measures. Means test is slow and costly. Understandably, government are making panic moves. Short of predicting a depression, IMF has declared the approach of the worse recession since the 1930's. It was said that last month 1 in 7 is out of a job in the US. Enormous pressure is imposed on government to sprinkle money regardless of cost, but where? In my backyard, and that is the bottom line? The public have no one else to blame except itself if it would rather sit on its hands, moaning and groaning, because government is only as good as its people get. We should actively participate to find a way out. The firsts step, I would suggest, is to implement Basic Income Guarantee.
- Newme
- Posts: 1401
- Joined: December 13th, 2011, 1:21 am
Re: Should Basic Income Guarantee be introduced to tackle the present Pandemic e n
Several reasons why this global shut down of economies (which is harming MANY) is an overreaction:
1) Each year, many die of flu - mostly elderly with compromised immune systems.
*2019-2020 season flu deaths: up to 62,000 in the US
That’s WAY more than covid.
https://www.cdc.gov/flu/about/burden/pr ... imates.htm
And previous years, it shows similar ranges:
https://www.cdc.gov/flu/about/burden/past-seasons.html
2) As The video/testimony of a nurse said in this video, many deaths are being MISREPORTED as caused by covid-19 when they were never even tested for it. This is happening on a big scale.
ICU Nurse Whistle blower: Covid19 is Manufactured Crisis:
https://youtu.be/uGZ-DW5LVCs
https://youtu.be/a2vEPEXJVts
3) Tests have been found to be flawed - showing the same person testing positive & negative.
4) My sister & many others were denied a test.
5) Other countries have offered effective tests but the US declined - this and the above 3 points indicate that discovering the truth about this virus’s threat or lack of threat - is NOT genuinely desired. And all of the fear-mongering percentages from biased news are inaccurate - completely baseless without proper testing.
6) “As of 19 March 2020, COVID-19 is no longer considered to be a high consequence infectious diseases (HCID) in the UK.”
https://www.gov.uk/guidance/high-conseq ... f-covid-19
Yet, my friend in London just told me police are kicking people out of parks/ public places. Why?
7) Sweden hasn’t shut down everything and yet is doing better than other countries.
https://www.nationalreview.com/2020/04/ ... omic-ruin/
Twelve medical experts whose opinions on the Coronavirus outbreak contradict the official narratives of the media:
https://off-guardian.org/2020/03/24/12- ... rus-panic/
-
- Posts: 1133
- Joined: October 23rd, 2019, 4:48 pm
Re: Should Basic Income Guarantee be introduced to tackle the present Pandemic e n
The substantive shut-down of the global economy is an overreaction? Be that as it may, the shut-down cannot be pretended away or swept away. When it comes to a matter of life and death, many would not be too concerned about the difference of 1 in 100 and 1 in 10,000. Dichotomization is what most would follow psychologically.
The approaching Recession of the world economy is imminent. IMF has predicted the worst recession since the 1930's, and this is no fear-mongering. Indeed, this can be an understatement. Be prepared for the next Depression, and find out how Depression is defined. Wish I were wrong. In any way, stay calm to survive financially.
- LuckyR
- Moderator
- Posts: 7935
- Joined: January 18th, 2015, 1:16 am
Re: Should Basic Income Guarantee be introduced to tackle the present Pandemic e n
1) You do understand that 62k is for the flu SEASON, ie 12 months, right? COVID has killed >44k in essentially one month.Newme wrote: ↑April 19th, 2020, 12:39 pm THINK and research for yourself. Don’t go along with the herds who gullibly believe whatever illogical base-less fear-mongering.
Several reasons why this global shut down of economies (which is harming MANY) is an overreaction:
1) Each year, many die of flu - mostly elderly with compromised immune systems.
*2019-2020 season flu deaths: up to 62,000 in the US
That’s WAY more than covid.
https://www.cdc.gov/flu/about/burden/pr ... imates.htm
And previous years, it shows similar ranges:
https://www.cdc.gov/flu/about/burden/past-seasons.html
2) As The video/testimony of a nurse said in this video, many deaths are being MISREPORTED as caused by covid-19 when they were never even tested for it. This is happening on a big scale.
ICU Nurse Whistle blower: Covid19 is Manufactured Crisis:
https://youtu.be/uGZ-DW5LVCs
https://youtu.be/a2vEPEXJVts
3) Tests have been found to be flawed - showing the same person testing positive & negative.
4) My sister & many others were denied a test.
5) Other countries have offered effective tests but the US declined - this and the above 3 points indicate that discovering the truth about this virus’s threat or lack of threat - is NOT genuinely desired. And all of the fear-mongering percentages from biased news are inaccurate - completely baseless without proper testing.
6) “As of 19 March 2020, COVID-19 is no longer considered to be a high consequence infectious diseases (HCID) in the UK.”
https://www.gov.uk/guidance/high-conseq ... f-covid-19
Yet, my friend in London just told me police are kicking people out of parks/ public places. Why?
7) Sweden hasn’t shut down everything and yet is doing better than other countries.
https://www.nationalreview.com/2020/04/ ... omic-ruin/
Twelve medical experts whose opinions on the Coronavirus outbreak contradict the official narratives of the media:
https://off-guardian.org/2020/03/24/12- ... rus-panic/
2) Statistically it is not required to test for the virus to calculate the number of COVID deaths since as you pointed out in your #1, the number of flu deaths is predictable, the excess of Influenza Like Illness is COVID.
3) See #2
4) True
5) VERY true, the true numbers are even higher. See #4
6) You are misunderstanding a technical differentiation between UK governmental bodies having to do with statistics on: the confirmation of low overall mortality rates, greater clinical awareness, and a specific and sensitive laboratory test, the availability of which continued to increase. The statement said "the need to have a national, coordinated response remains" and added "this is being met by the government’s COVID-19 response". This meant cases of COVID-19 are no longer managed by HCID treatment centres only.
7) Sweden has a COVID death per million rate of 175, compared to Denmark 64, Norway of 34 and Finland at 25 (the others of which did lockdowns).
8 ) The jury system confirms it is easy to find twelve idiots.
-
- Posts: 1133
- Joined: October 23rd, 2019, 4:48 pm
Re: Should Basic Income Guarantee be introduced to tackle the present Pandemic e n
It is excessive to describe the global economy as shutting down, or substantially shutting down. With no international agreement, and not even recommendation from WHO, each regime takes measures it deems appropriate. China, for example, shut down Wuhan and then the province, but never the whole country. Global air travel has been vastly reduced, step by step, but never terminated. Only history will tell whether reaction from different regimes is over the top, but even that will be subject to argument of "What if?".gad-fly wrote: ↑April 20th, 2020, 5:10 pmThe substantive shut-down of the global economy is an overreaction? Be that as it may, the shut-down cannot be pretended away or swept away. When it comes to a matter of life and death, many would not be too concerned about the difference of 1 in 100 and 1 in 10,000. Dichotomization is what most would follow psychologically.
The approaching Recession of the world economy is imminent. IMF has predicted the worst recession since the 1930's, and this is no fear-mongering. Indeed, this can be an understatement. Be prepared for the next Depression, and find out how Depression is defined. Wish I were wrong. In any way, stay calm to survive financially.
Suffice to say that each regime should be trusted to act with the best intention based on public interest, given the circumstances known and estimated. Some may overreact; some under; some lucky enough to be right on. This comment also applies to people under the regime.
Back to the title: Should Basic Income be introduced by this pandemic. I think it should, on the argument that first of all: Yes, the timing is right. What better than during a economic crisis, when it is needed most. It is affordable comparatively. Budget of $43 billion is dwarfed by $73 billion wage subsidy in Canada. Reactive measures such as Wage Subsidy are piecemeal, uneven, and unfair. How about those unemployed? They are urgent too. We know, but they have to wait, because it is one at a time.
But No, the timing is bad. because Basic Income Guarantee is not reactive. When so many voices are heard shouting for help, how can you keep a cool head? When some needs $X, some needs $Y, how can you say: each will receive $X, because X is smaller than Y, and X is what we can afford? If not, the rule, unfortunately, must be: First come first. Regrettable? Yes, but we only progress by trial and error, ever so slowly.
- LuckyR
- Moderator
- Posts: 7935
- Joined: January 18th, 2015, 1:16 am
Re: Should Basic Income Guarantee be introduced to tackle the present Pandemic e n
In the ten days since I answered this stuff the first time, US deaths are now more than 62,000, in less than 2 months, compared to flu deaths in 12 months.Newme wrote: ↑April 19th, 2020, 12:39 pm THINK and research for yourself. Don’t go along with the herds who gullibly believe whatever illogical base-less fear-mongering.
Several reasons why this global shut down of economies (which is harming MANY) is an overreaction:
1) Each year, many die of flu - mostly elderly with compromised immune systems.
*2019-2020 season flu deaths: up to 62,000 in the US
That’s WAY more than covid.
https://www.cdc.gov/flu/about/burden/pr ... imates.htm
And previous years, it shows similar ranges:
https://www.cdc.gov/flu/about/burden/past-seasons.html
- Newme
- Posts: 1401
- Joined: December 13th, 2011, 1:21 am
Re: Should Basic Income Guarantee be introduced to tackle the present Pandemic e n
True the shut down has happened but mainly because people allowed their fears to override reason and herd mentality. If enough people wake up, the effects won’t be as bad. Gradually they are.gad-fly wrote: ↑April 20th, 2020, 5:10 pmThe substantive shut-down of the global economy is an overreaction? Be that as it may, the shut-down cannot be pretended away or swept away. When it comes to a matter of life and death, many would not be too concerned about the difference of 1 in 100 and 1 in 10,000. Dichotomization is what most would follow psychologically.
The approaching Recession of the world economy is imminent. IMF has predicted the worst recession since the 1930's, and this is no fear-mongering. Indeed, this can be an understatement. Be prepared for the next Depression, and find out how Depression is defined. Wish I were wrong. In any way, stay calm to survive financially.
- Newme
- Posts: 1401
- Joined: December 13th, 2011, 1:21 am
Re: Should Basic Income Guarantee be introduced to tackle the present Pandemic e n
Where’s all this free money coming from? What costly strings attached?gad-fly wrote: ↑April 30th, 2020, 12:00 pmIt is excessive to describe the global economy as shutting down, or substantially shutting down. With no international agreement, and not even recommendation from WHO, each regime takes measures it deems appropriate. China, for example, shut down Wuhan and then the province, but never the whole country. Global air travel has been vastly reduced, step by step, but never terminated. Only history will tell whether reaction from different regimes is over the top, but even that will be subject to argument of "What if?".gad-fly wrote: ↑April 20th, 2020, 5:10 pm
The substantive shut-down of the global economy is an overreaction? Be that as it may, the shut-down cannot be pretended away or swept away. When it comes to a matter of life and death, many would not be too concerned about the difference of 1 in 100 and 1 in 10,000. Dichotomization is what most would follow psychologically.
The approaching Recession of the world economy is imminent. IMF has predicted the worst recession since the 1930's, and this is no fear-mongering. Indeed, this can be an understatement. Be prepared for the next Depression, and find out how Depression is defined. Wish I were wrong. In any way, stay calm to survive financially.
Suffice to say that each regime should be trusted to act with the best intention based on public interest, given the circumstances known and estimated. Some may overreact; some under; some lucky enough to be right on. This comment also applies to people under the regime.
Back to the title: Should Basic Income be introduced by this pandemic. I think it should, on the argument that first of all: Yes, the timing is right. What better than during a economic crisis, when it is needed most. It is affordable comparatively. Budget of $43 billion is dwarfed by $73 billion wage subsidy in Canada. Reactive measures such as Wage Subsidy are piecemeal, uneven, and unfair. How about those unemployed? They are urgent too. We know, but they have to wait, because it is one at a time.
But No, the timing is bad. because Basic Income Guarantee is not reactive. When so many voices are heard shouting for help, how can you keep a cool head? When some needs $X, some needs $Y, how can you say: each will receive $X, because X is smaller than Y, and X is what we can afford? If not, the rule, unfortunately, must be: First come first. Regrettable? Yes, but we only progress by trial and error, ever so slowly.
As my teacher had posted in his classroom: “There is no free lunch.”
2023/2024 Philosophy Books of the Month
Mark Victor Hansen, Relentless: Wisdom Behind the Incomparable Chicken Soup for the Soul
by Mitzi Perdue
February 2023
Rediscovering the Wisdom of Human Nature: How Civilization Destroys Happiness
by Chet Shupe
March 2023