How can a magazine called The Econiomist publish this crap?

fishgutzy

Senior Member
Joined
Dec 19, 2016
Messages
8,543
Location
Behind Enemy Lines.
Rating - 100%
6   0   0
More like The Socialist. I don't think I have seen any articles that actually defend the free market.

A BASIC income (BI) is defined as a modest, regular payment to every legal resident in the community, paid unconditionally as a right, regardless of income, employment or relationship status.

Contrary to conventional wisdom, the case for BI does not rest on the assumption that robots and artificial intelligence will cause mass unemployment or that it would be a more efficient way of relieving poverty than present welfare systems (although it would). The main arguments are ethical and relate to social justice, individual freedom and the need for basic security.

It goes on with more drivel from there.
The fact that the author is using both "social justice" and individual freedom is proof he is either deliberately ignorant or knowingly pushing Socialist propaganda. Individual freedom is contradictory to the entire concept of social justice. Social justice requires the elimination of individual liberty, replaced with submission to state rule.

https://www.economist.com/open-future/2018/07/04/why-the-world-should-adopt-a-basic-income
 
More like The Socialist. I don't think I have seen any articles that actually defend the free market.

The guy that wrote the article is a socialist of the highest order and the Economist is socialist in its leanings as it is European. You do occasionally have a real capitalist write for them, but not many.

What the "nutter" who wrote the article failed to mention is that finland did in fact implement a "basic income" guarantee to its poor two years ago. SHOCKER!!!!! They terminated the experiment as an abysmal failure this year. Guess what they found out. If you pay people to do nothing, they will be perfectly happy doing nothing.

Dummies.
 
The guy that wrote the article is a socialist of the highest order and the Economist is socialist in its leanings as it is European. You do occasionally have a real capitalist write for them, but not many.

What the "nutter" who wrote the article failed to mention is that finland did in fact implement a "basic income" guarantee to its poor two years ago. SHOCKER!!!!! They terminated the experiment as an abysmal failure this year. Guess what they found out. If you pay people to do nothing, they will be perfectly happy doing nothing.

Dummies.
Socialist think that no matter how times you rewind the tape, this time the hero won't die.
 
Keynesian Economics was wrong from the start, but since then has been bastardized and slanted toward even more lunacy. And whenever almost every major university economics department is staffed with only Keynesians or pure
Marxists thought is only going to go in one dirction. Heck, Paul Krugman has a Nobel Prize and I don't think he has ever been right about anything.
 
Keynesian Economics was wrong from the start, but since then has been bastardized and slanted toward even more lunacy. And whenever almost every major university economics department is staffed with only Keynesians or pure
Marxists thought is only going to go in one dirction. Heck, Paul Krugman has a Nobel Prize and I don't think he has ever been right about anything.
On a flight back from China, there were a bunch of MBA students that had "studied" in China business school for a semester. I said nothing. These people didn't see the irony of this. China does not understand actual business building practices or innovation.
 
Because, quite simply you quickly learn that capitalistic tendencies are the reality. And most people will learn those concepts for themselves...

To have tenure and teach.... you have to make sh!t up. (And, I am an Economist!)

Edit ADD:... To have tenure, teach and control the means of societal production... you have to make sh!t up. (And, I am an Economist!)
 
Last edited:
Socialist think that no matter how times you rewind the tape, this time the hero won't die.

That's close, but in my opinion they have such an inflated opinion of themselves as to believe that the reason socialism fails is because they are not the ones running it. THEY could make it work, because they are that much smarter than everyone who has come before them.

JERKS!!!
 
More like The Socialist. I don't think I have seen any articles that actually defend the free market.

A BASIC income (BI) is defined as a modest, regular payment to every legal resident in the community, paid unconditionally as a right, regardless of income, employment or relationship status.

Contrary to conventional wisdom, the case for BI does not rest on the assumption that robots and artificial intelligence will cause mass unemployment or that it would be a more efficient way of relieving poverty than present welfare systems (although it would). The main arguments are ethical and relate to social justice, individual freedom and the need for basic security.

It goes on with more drivel from there.
The fact that the author is using both "social justice" and individual freedom is proof he is either deliberately ignorant or knowingly pushing Socialist propaganda. Individual freedom is contradictory to the entire concept of social justice. Social justice requires the elimination of individual liberty, replaced with submission to state rule.

https://www.economist.com/open-future/2018/07/04/why-the-world-should-adopt-a-basic-income

And just WHO the f*** pays for this BI that is "paid unconditionally as a right"?

Uh-huh. Just what I thought.

Bugger that.
 
total-vs-marginal-utility.jpg
DHLIk4mVwAAUxFl.jpg


Keep in mind that utility curve theory was drawn up and taught well before 48% of the country became gimmie-dats....
 
Last edited:
Back in the early 90s I had an economics class taught by a conservative. I know, gasp, but it does happen occasionally. He argued for doing away with the whole welfare system, I mean the entire thing, and instead using the IRS to just hand them a check. What they choose to do with it was their business - but remember no food stamps, no Medicaid, no nothing. He also argued that the rate of drop off needed to be such that if you did any work you had more income than if you didn’t work. The more you work or earn, the smaller your handout but the critical point was to make work, any work, more profitable than sitting around. The current system takes everything away if they go over X hours even at minimum wage and it is more lucrative to not work. His plan was to fix that as well as eliminate the inefficient bureaucracy,
 
Last edited:
I used to subscribe, but couldn't take it anymore. Every problem could be solved by "raising taxes by XYZ%" or "more government market manipulation". Seemed like any ideas/solutions based on facts or historic performance or "something not tried before" went away and only the same rehash of garbage that hasn't worked before was put forward. No reason for me to pay to hear about things that don't work and I don't agree with.
 
Back in the early 90s I had an economics class taught by a conservative. I know, gasp, but it does happen occasionally. He argued for doing away with the whole welfare system, I mean the entire thing, and instead using the IRS to just hand them a check. What they choose to do with it was their business - but remember no food stamps, no Medicaid, no nothing. He also argued that the rate of drop off needed to be such that if you did any work you had more income than if you didn’t work. The more you work or earn, the smaller your handout but the critical point was to make work, any work, more profitable than sitting around. The current system takes everything away if they go over X hours even at minimum wage and it is more lucrative to not work. His plan was to fix that as well as eliminate the inefficient bureaucracy,

I think if you take money from the government, that makes you an employee of the government.

Plenty of jobs people on these programs can do. Then, if they don't like the jobs, they can leave and get jobs in the private sector.
 
Finland to end basic income trial after two years
Europe’s first national government-backed experiment in giving citizens free cash will end next year after Finland decided not to extend its widely publicised basic income trial and to explore alternative welfare schemes instead.
Since January 2017, a random sample of 2,000 unemployed people aged 25 to 58 have been paid a monthly €560 (£475) , with no requirement to seek or accept employment. Any recipients who took a job continued to receive the same amount.

The government has turned down a request for extra funding from Kela, the Finnish social security agency, to expand the two-year pilot to a group of employees this year, and said payments to current participants will end next January.
It has also introduced legislation making some benefits for unemployed people contingent on taking training or working at least 18 hours in three months. “The government is making changes taking the system away from basic income,” Kela’s Miska Simanainen told the Swedish newspaper Svenska Dagbladet.


The scheme – aimed primarily at seeing whether a guaranteed income might incentivise people to take up paid work by smoothing out gaps in the welfare system – is strictly speaking not a universal basic income (UBI) trial, because the payments are made to a restricted group and are not enough to live on.

But it was hoped it would shed light on policy issues such as whether an unconditional payment might reduce anxiety among recipients and allow the government to simplify a complex social security system that is struggling to cope with a fast-moving and insecure labour market.

Olli Kangas, an expert involved in the trial, told the Finnish public broadcaster YLE: “Two years is too short a period to be able to draw extensive conclusions from such a big experiment. We should have had extra time and more money to achieve reliable results.”

The idea of UBI – appealing both to the left, which hopes it can cut poverty and inequality, and to the right, which sees it as a possible route to a leaner, less bureaucratic welfare system – has gained traction recently amid predictions that automation could threaten up to a third of current jobs.

The Finnish finance minister, Petteri Orpo, told Hufvudstadsbladet he was looking into trialling alternative welfare schemes, including a universal credit system similar to that being introduced in the UK, when the basic income pilot ends.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2018/apr/23/finland-to-end-basic-income-trial-after-two-years
More here: http://fortune.com/2018/04/19/finland-universal-basic-income-experiment-ending/
 
GOVERNMENT: "The results are in...the UBI absolutely, positively, in no uncertain terms, FAILED to work in any instance. All we're doing is handing out free money to people who aren't doing anything to change their circumstances and actually earn a living. Let's change what we're doing to require these people get some government funded training and to actually perform some work while they're getting this money."

SOCIALIST EXPERT: "We need more time and more free money from the government to make this work."
 
Last edited:
Back
Top Bottom