Britain is thinking about becoming Haven.

I always thought what a remarkably foolish thing it was for Haven to put its whole population on the dole. I believed no one would do such a thing unless they had completely forgotten the disasters such utopian schemes had wreaked in the 19th and 20th centuries.

I was wrong. Finland announced awhile back that they were thinking of replacing their welfare program with a payment to all residents. I assumed that was just a political ploy and they would come to their senses and abandon it.

I just read a proposal on the UK Huffington Post that the Labour Party is considering a universal dole of £308 monthly. Since they don't seem to have any sense I have a strong feeling that this is the end of Great Britain as a rational polity.

Maybe someone should send Jeremy Corbyn a copy of "The Short Victorious War".

Maybe you have some reading to do about what basic income schemes are actually about and what their actual effects are rather than assume things about them.

sunnyravenwood wrote:I just read a proposal on the UK Huffington Post that the Labour Party is considering a universal dole of £308 monthly. Since they don't seem to have any sense I have a strong feeling that this is the end of Great Britain as a rational polity.

Key words there, Labour Party.
There's no need to worry. As long as they have Jeremy Corbyn leading them, the only way they can win is if...
is if...
is if...
Yeah, Labour under Corbyn ain't gonna get into power.

You want something to freak you out, check the first manifesto of the Monster Raving Loonie Party. EVERY SINGLE ONE of their pledges (save re-introducing crocodiles to the Thames) has actually been fulfilled...

I'm watching the progress of their second manifesto very cautiously...

sunnyravenwood wrote:I always thought what a remarkably foolish thing it was for Haven to put its whole population on the dole. I believed no one would do such a thing unless they had completely forgotten the disasters such utopian schemes had wreaked in the 19th and 20th centuries.

No country of the 19th nor 20th century actually enacted such a policy on a national basis, though. None in the 21st have done it yet, either. Empirical proof of the concept's feasibility or lack of does not exist yet.

So how could Haven learn from it??

sunnyravenwood wrote:I just read a proposal on the UK Huffington Post that the Labour Party is considering a universal dole of £308 monthly. Since they don't seem to have any sense I have a strong feeling that this is the end of Great Britain as a rational polity.

If you've been paying attention to more than headlines, you should know the Labour Party is in the midst of a civil war, with all sorts of contradictory things being said on a daily basis. The party as a whole is steadily slipping in the polls as the internecine contest goes on.

Furthermore, the latest polls suggests the Tories would get as many as 372 seats to 150 for Labour. The Tories are devoted to the principles of austerity(smaller government, spending cuts, tax cuts, etc.), though practice might differ from theory. So there is no danger of this passing anytime soon in the UK.

The E wrote:Maybe you have some reading to do about what basic income schemes are actually about and what their actual effects are rather than assume things about them.

Absolutely seconded.

One of the big differences is, in Haven, you had to quit your job to get the dole(and weren't required to look for another job). UBI is supposed to be given to everyone regardless of their incomes - go become a millionaire or a tent-dwelling vagabond, keep your UBI either way.

As long as they don't bother weeding out anyone, the administration costs will be much smaller than all of the current programs combined, some of which can be phased out afterwards.

munroburton wrote:

sunnyravenwood wrote:I always thought what a remarkably foolish thing it was for Haven to put its whole population on the dole. I believed no one would do such a thing unless they had completely forgotten the disasters such utopian schemes had wreaked in the 19th and 20th centuries.

No country of the 19th nor 20th century actually enacted such a policy on a national basis, though. None in the 21st have done it yet, either. Empirical proof of the concept's feasibility or lack of does not exist yet.

So how could Haven learn from it??

sunnyravenwood wrote:I just read a proposal on the UK Huffington Post that the Labour Party is considering a universal dole of £308 monthly. Since they don't seem to have any sense I have a strong feeling that this is the end of Great Britain as a rational polity.

If you've been paying attention to more than headlines, you should know the Labour Party is in the midst of a civil war, with all sorts of contradictory things being said on a daily basis. The party as a whole is steadily slipping in the polls as the internecine contest goes on.

Furthermore, the latest polls suggests the Tories would get as many as 372 seats to 150 for Labour. The Tories are devoted to the principles of austerity(smaller government, spending cuts, tax cuts, etc.), though practice might differ from theory. So there is no danger of this passing anytime soon in the UK.

The E wrote:Maybe you have some reading to do about what basic income schemes are actually about and what their actual effects are rather than assume things about them.

Absolutely seconded.

One of the big differences is, in Haven, you had to quit your job to get the dole(and weren't required to look for another job). UBI is supposed to be given to everyone regardless of their incomes - go become a millionaire or a tent-dwelling vagabond, keep your UBI either way.

As long as they don't bother weeding out anyone, the administration costs will be much smaller than all of the current programs combined, some of which can be phased out afterwards.

You mean it might be possible that some politicos somewhere might actually cut some program

I believe it has been done at times, but the number of obsolete government programs still in existence

SF stories are speculative about possible futures. Does anyone recall any where only one house of a bicameral legislature can increase laws, with the concurrence of the other; but the second can also decrease existing law, possibly without needing the concurrence of the first house

DDHv wrote:SF stories are speculative about possible futures. Does anyone recall any where only one house of a bicameral legislature can increase laws, with the concurrence of the other; but the second can also decrease existing law, possibly without needing the concurrence of the first house

The Moon is a Harsh Mistress? I think Prof was calling for a lower house which needed a two thirds majority to pass laws and an upper house which needs only a third of their votes to repeal.

Let's not automatically consider the libertarian views as automatically and absolutely correct, shall we?

The idea of basic income is NOT just wishful thinking about universal welfare and equality. It is based on quite a lot of theoretical and experimental data. A lot more experience were taken intop consideration.

There were a nubmer of experiments, which clearly indicated that the idea of "peoples would just do nothing and live on income" is too primitive. A number of them would, undoubtedly (but they basically do this in any other form of economy, with more or less sucsess). But the majority would quite soon became dissatisfied with their limited abilites on basic income. They started to want more. And - because they knew, that their basic survival is provided in any case - they started to open buisness, invest money, find more prestigious works. Basically, they started to risk more.

The main idea of basics income is to get rid of the fear of losing everything. Which is one of the most important factor, that limited humans initativness. If peoples are afraid to lose all, they tended to risk less, cling to what they already have, without trying to look for more.

But is they are sure that they would NOT lose everything under any conditions - they would became bolder. And they would start to want much more than the basics.

Of curse, there are a lot of hidden problems, and the actual realisation may be not as good as it was supposed to be. But there is nothing "internally flawed" in the mere idea of basic income.

Dilandu wrote:Let's not automatically consider the libertarian views as automatically and absolutely correct, shall we?

The idea of basic income is NOT just wishful thinking about universal welfare and equality. It is based on quite a lot of theoretical and experimental data. A lot more experience were taken into consideration.

There were a number of experiments, which clearly indicated that the idea of "peoples would just do nothing and live on income" is too primitive. A number of them would, undoubtedly (but they basically do this in any other form of economy, with more or less success). But the majority would quite soon became dissatisfied with their limited abilities on basic income. They started to want more. And - because they knew, that their basic survival is provided in any case - they started to open business, invest money, find more prestigious works. Basically, they started to risk more.

There are those who are willing to spend an inordinate time gaming the system so they don't have to work. Whether the state provides a basic income or they live off social welfare doesn't matter. They will continue being a drag on society but the basic income scheme will probably be cheaper compared to social welfare and it's administration.

I had an acquaintance once that thought that working where for losers and he spent most of his time on con schemes (they weren't very well thought out since they all could be traced back to him) or in jail for fraud. I followed my fathers advice ("You lend money to people you trust or to people you don't want to see again.") and loaned him a very small sum of money - I've never crossed paths with him since.

Dilandu wrote:The main idea of basics income is to get rid of the fear of losing everything. Which is one of the most important factor, that limited humans imitativeness. If peoples are afraid to lose all, they tended to risk less, cling to what they already have, without trying to look for more.

But is they are sure that they would NOT lose everything under any conditions - they would became bolder. And they would start to want much more than the basics.

Of curse, there are a lot of hidden problems, and the actual realization may be not as good as it was supposed to be. But there is nothing "internally flawed" in the mere idea of basic income.

As you say, if people know they have less to lose they will risk more and that may well give the net effect of a boosted economy.