Guaranteed Income in the news...

[metis]

Back in the 1950s? We weren't running trillion-dollar deficits back then. I assume Friedman's plan was not like Murray's. What was Friedman's plan?

Essentially this: you start out with a base minimum salary for, let's say, a family of four for one year, and let's say that it's $25,000. If the family cannot find employment, they get that figure. But let's say one of them gets a job at $20,000 per year, what then happens is a splitting of the difference, so the family then is guaranteed a yearly $35,000 salary.

So, if anyone in the family gets a job, the family benefits because their salary goes up, but so does the government benefit because what they have to pay goes down, and the tax-payer benefits because they pay less in taxes.

BTW, proportionally, the Eisenhower years had a higher proportion of deficit than we've seen in most decades since. He was no fiscal conservative by any stretch of the imagination. Neither was Reagan, btw-- quite the reverse.

 

[Walter Russell]

Except that isn't Socialism or Communism.

I'm not doing any twisting. As I indicated already, things like owning your own labor and the fruits of your own labor are core principles of both Marxism (though the terms "alienation of labor" were used) and left-Libertarians. They both seek to end corporate control of markets and socialize the economic means of production and distribution, and they both promote communal ownership of resources over allowing a few to own and control them.

No true Scotsman is an informal fallacy, an ad hoc attempt to retain an unreasoned assertion.[1] When faced with a counterexample to a universal claim ("no Scotsman would do such a thing"), rather than denying the counterexample or rejecting the original claim, this fallacy modifies the subject of the assertion to exclude the specific case or others like it by rhetoric, without reference to any specific objective rule ("no true Scotsman would do such a thing"; i.e., those who perform that action are not part of our group and thus criticism of that action is not criticism of the group).[2]

Does owning your own labor include cutting down a few trees in the forest and living a secluded and independent life for myself or are we just talking about keeping all of what you earn in forced labor at a wage the government deems appropriate?

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Does owning your own labor include cutting down a few trees in the forest and living a secluded and independent life for myself or are we just talking about keeping all of what you earn in forced labor at a wage the government deems appropriate?

Earning a wage is generally considered to not own your own labor, as the wage earner receives only a tiny portion of the profits for their labor, and they have no power over the results of their labor.

 

[Nous]

BTW, proportionally, the Eisenhower years had a higher proportion of deficit than we've seen in most decades since.

Here's what the picture looks like today:

It is true that WWII created huge deficit spending, but we came out of that really rapidly.

Essentially this: you start out with a base minimum salary for, let's say, a family of four for one year, and let's say that it's $25,000. If the family cannot find employment, they get that figure. But let's say one of them gets a job at $20,000 per year, what then happens is a splitting of the difference, so the family then is guaranteed a yearly $35,000 salary.

So, if anyone in the family gets a job, the family benefits because their salary goes up, but so does the government benefit because what they have to pay goes down, and the tax-payer benefits because they pay less in taxes.

Did Friedman’s scheme provide a balanced budget? Is there any reason to believe it would today? Obviously Murray’s doesn’t.

 

[Revoltingest]

Please stop trying to speak for us.

A difference between us is that I identify as both "libertarian" & "Libertarian.....not something else which some say is a kind of libertarian.
I've been one since the 1970s, & I've long seen what we're about.
Those who want to impose an economically authoritarian system upon us are authoritarian, not libertarian, & have never had a visible role in the party.
That's how I see it, & that's how I'll say it.

I'm an anarcho-communist and an individualist anarchist, which are libertarian. I'm not a Marxist, either. I think Marxism is awful and a failure. I'm not a liberal, such as a classical liberal or neoliberal, either.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Left-libertarianism
If you want anarcho-communism, you can already do this under a capitalist system.
But it must be voluntary for all involved.
A countrywide system of communism....it cannot happen without extreme coercion, ie, it's not libertarian.

I'm familiar with the Wikipedia article, I find it doesn't represent N Americastanian usage.

We also don't view capitalism as "economic freedom", so stop trying to use your movement's propaganda to hoard the label to yourself.

Giving me an order, eh?
I'll continue anyway.
But let me know when you've found a real world system to replace capitalism with something else offering free economic association between individuals.

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

A difference between us is that I identify as both "libertarian" & "Libertarian.....not something else which some say is a kind of libertarian.
I've been one since the 1970s, & I've long seen what we're about.
Those who want to impose an economically authoritarian system upon us are authoritarian, not libertarian, & have never had a visible role in the party.

I'm familiar with the Wikipedia article, I find it doesn't represent N Americastanian usage.

Giving me an order, eh?
I'll continue anyway.
But let me know when you've found a real world system to replace capitalism with something else offering free economic association between individuals.

That's cute, because it's unregulated capitalism that I see as authoritarian and enslaving. I'm not interested in being a part of your "party" and I'm not partial to American political definitions because they're a mess and too biased.

 

[Revoltingest]

You can keep trying to pretend they don't exist, or that it somehow isn't proper, but the reality is they do exist, and they do call themselves Libertarians.

I've just never met who use your distinction IRL, nor does it come up in the media, nor does it exist in either the Canuckistanian or Americastanian parties.
It seems arcane & foreign.

And, let's be realistic, there is no Libertarian community as a whole that share equal values. Such as, of the two common names invoked by social and economic conservatives of the right, Ayn Rand and Milton Friedman, they had very different ideas. Friedman was more generous than Rand (and basing his ideas more on the Constitution and welfare spending based on GPD), and very different from other Libertarian invokees such as Robert Nozick. And then we have the Koch Brothers who support their own ideals of what Libertarianism should be.
And then, on the left, where "Markets not Capitalism" is promoted, a group sometimes known as Libertarian Socialists, we find people who are way out in the left field and keeping company with groups such as Anarcho-Communists.

There are different views among libertarians, but we still don't make the "left" v "right" distinction.
We're not "conservative".
Btw, Ayn Rand was fervently not a libertarian.

 

[Revoltingest]

That's cute, because it's unregulated capitalism that I see as authoritarian and enslaving. I'm not interested in being a part of your "party" and I'm not partial to American political definitions because they're a mess and too biased.

There's plenty of regulation of capitalism here, & it's been steadily increasing.
If you want the government to step in, & greatly increase this, it's simply not libertarian.
It's more line with the Democratic Party.

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

There's plenty of regulation of capitalism here, & it's been steadily increasing.

Really? So the 2008 economic crash happened because of all that government regulation, then? I guess all of those Wall Street crooks and politicians who caused it are in jail, then? Wow, I must've missed a lot.

The economy has become less and less regulated since about the days of Reagan, and the middle class is being destroyed because of it. America was at its most prosperous for the greatest number of Americans from the New Deal era through the post-WWII era. Then it went to **** because of the neoliberals and their fervor to privatize everything (which is a global trend and has caused much harm around the globe).

If you want the government to step in, & greatly increase this, it's simply not libertarian.

If we have to have a State, I want it to be the slave of the people and to work for everyone's benefit, not just the benefit of those with the money to buy it.

It's more line with the Democratic Party.

According to your right-wing conception of it, which I don't care about. The Democratic Party is too right-wing for me.

 

[Revoltingest]

Really? So the 2008 economic crash happened because of all that government regulation, then?

Regulation played a huge role.
I've covered this in detail before several times.

I guess all of those Wall Street crooks and politicians who caused it are in jail, then? Wow, I must've missed a lot.

You did.
The crash didn't start with Wall St.
In a nutshell, gov lending requirements resulted in a real estate bubble, which began bursting shortly after 2001.09.11.
As businesses contracted, workers lost jobs & wages. Unable to make loan payments, companies like Countrywide collapsed.
There's much more to it.

The economy has become less and less regulated since about the days of Reagan, and the middle class is being destroyed because of it. America was at its most prosperous for the greatest number of Americans from the New Deal era through the post-WWII era. Then it went to **** because of the neoliberals and their fervor to privatize everything (which is a global trend and has caused much harm around the globe).

I've started & run more than one business & investment.
You're simply wrong about decreasing regulation.
Check the CFR (Code Of Federal Regulations), & you'll see that even under Reagan,
it increased every year under even him.
I live with the regulations, & have watched them grow in number & scope because I
must comply with them in leasing, buying, selling, hiring, firing, borrowing, remodeling,
building, developing, debt collection, evicting, etc.
People not in business will never see this.

If we have to have a State, I want it to be the slave of the people and to work for everyone's benefit, not just the benefit of those with the money to buy it.
According to your right-wing conception of it, which I don't care about. The Democratic Party is too right-wing for me.

So if you want something even more authoritarian than Democrats, the LIbertarian Party is no place for you.

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

I'm not interested in you spewing propaganda. Let me guess, the Nazis were leftists, too, right? Ooh, you poor landlord, having to abide by regulations. How horrible. Apparently, the slumlord who owns the hellhole I live in is living the American Libertarian® dream. He's breaking all kinds of laws and pocketing the money. I don't want anything to do with the Libertarian Party or with it's ideology. I'm just saying that I am a libertarian - just not of your type - and you don't have the right to say I'm not. I'm not telling you're not a libertarian.

 

[metis]

Here's what the picture looks like today:

It is true that WWII created huge deficit spending, but we came out of that really rapidly.

Did Friedman’s scheme provide a balanced budget? Is there any reason to believe it would today? Obviously Murray’s doesn’t.

In "Free To Choose", if my memory is correct, he does. However, probably even most conservative economists will admit that there are times we may not have any choice. Deflation is a far more dangerous scenario than inflation when in a recession or depression.

BTW, did you notice how high it was in the 1950's? The jump in 2008+ was necessary to keep our economy from tanking, and it did pay off.

The "projection" as shown above is sorta weird because no one knows or even has a clue what will be done with the budget over then next 10 years.

 

[metis]

Really? So the 2008 economic crash happened because of all that government regulation, then? I guess all of those Wall Street crooks and politicians who caused it are in jail, then? Wow, I must've missed a lot.

The economy has become less and less regulated since about the days of Reagan, and the middle class is being destroyed because of it. America was at its most prosperous for the greatest number of Americans from the New Deal era through the post-WWII era. Then it went to **** because of the neoliberals and their fervor to privatize everything (which is a global trend and has caused much harm around the globe).

If we have to have a State, I want it to be the slave of the people and to work for everyone's benefit, not just the benefit of those with the money to buy it.

According to your right-wing conception of it, which I don't care about. The Democratic Party is too right-wing for me.

As you are pointing out to someone, it is logically impossible that too much regulation would cause or have anything to do with the Great Recession or the Great Depression. In both cases, we well know that over-speculation on a relatively little-regulated market was the main cause, and with the Great Recession the greatest single problem was with the shadow-banking system, and even conservative economist Alan Greenspan stated as such in his testimony to a congressional sub-committee.

Greenspan often labeled himself as an "Ayn Rand economist", but said in testimony that he came to realize that this paradigm not only didn't work, it largely led to the economic noser. He had felt that no bank or investment firm would dare take such risks so as to jeopardize itself, but that's exactly what happened. Many of the Keynesian economists predicted that there would likely be trouble years before the nosedive.

But those who watch Fox "News" would never hear this because hearing and then believing in fairy tales is so much more enticing to them.

 

[metis]

I don't want anything to do with the Libertarian Party or with it's ideology. I'm just saying that I am a libertarian - just not of your type - and you don't have the right to say I'm not. I'm not telling you're not a libertarian.

Yes, as there are such critters such as "left-libertarians". I is one, according to the political-preference tests-- pretty close to Gandhi, and I have more teeth than he did!

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

Yes, as there are such critters such as "left-libertarians". I is one, according to the political-preference tests-- pretty close to Gandhi, and I have more teeth than he did!

You're also not as racist or sexist as him. (I'm close to him, too, but I'd much rather hang out with Emma Goldman.)

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Btw, Ayn Rand was fervently not a libertarian.

I don't even consider her a "real" philosopher, but nevertheless many right-Libertarians do fervently invoke her name and promote her books, particularly The Fountainhead and Atlas Shrugged.

I've just never met who use your distinction IRL, nor does it come up in the media, nor does it exist in either the Canuckistanian or Americastanian parties.
It seems arcane & foreign.

And many criticize the American notions of "left vs. right" for a number of reasons. But, nevertheless, there are right-Libertarians who promote free-market Capitalism and left-Libertarians that promote social ownership.

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

I've just never met who use your distinction IRL, nor does it come up in the media, nor does it exist in either the Canuckistanian or Americastanian parties.
It seems arcane & foreign.

Really, Rev? You honestly think "well, I don't hear about it personally" is a good argument?! Tsk tsk.

 

[Revoltingest]

I don't even consider her a "real" philosopher....

I do.
She beats most of'm.
But people who dislike rugged individualism or atheism often won't recognize her being one.

....but nevertheless many right-Libertarians do fervently invoke her name and promote her books, particularly The Fountainhead and Atlas Shrugged.

She has been a big influence upon many of us real libertarians,
even if we find her a little bonkers & verbose.

And many criticize the American notions of "left vs. right" for a number of reasons.

With good reason.....& another good reason to avoid any prefix to "libertarian".
One either is or one ain't.

But, nevertheless, there are right-Libertarians who promote free-market Capitalism and left-Libertarians that promote social ownership.

Those lefties, if they favor government prohibition of capitalism, are economic authoritarians, allowing only social liberty.
But if they advocate voluntary communism/socialism (eg, communes), then they're libertarians.

 

[Revoltingest]

Really, Rev? You honestly think "well, I don't hear about it personally" is a good argument?! Tsk tsk.

Really.
Your usage is non-standard....unless perhaps if you live in Europistan.
Moreover, it's dysfunctional since half of humans would be "libertarian", since it's anyone who is in the socially liberal half.
Ever been to any Libertarian Party meetings or libertarian get togethers?
See how many are socialists.

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

Really.
Your usage is non-standard....unless perhaps if you live in Europistan.
Moreover, it's dysfunctional since half of humans would be "libertarian", since it's anyone who is in the socially liberal half.
Ever been to any Libertarian Party meetings or libertarian get togethers?
See how many are socialists.

It's non-standard in America, but America is not the world. Most actual civilized and intelligent societies can understand it (i.e. outside of America, lol). If "half of the world" is socially libertarian, who cares? Numbers are irrelevant to the conversation.

I said I don't give a damn about your pet right-wing party and what they think about anything. The Democratic Party is also more right-wing than most Conservative Parties around the world. American understanding of political ideologies is just really screwed, but our educational system is extremely screwed in the first place.