a perfect case in point for #UBI (Universal Basic income)
@tshepang
I would need to give this idea some more thought.
You see, if a service does not cost anything at all, there tends to be waste and abuse.
If everyone is given a basic income to cover their (basic) needs, this would solve that problem too, don't you think?
In any event, public goods should be held by a (non-corrupt) state and not by private citizens or corporations (e.g. water rights).
(1/n)
Very interesting. You thought of corruption by administrators (and rightly so, see my posts, e.g., about Nestlé and water-rights abuses, e.g., in the US and elsewhere.)
I thought more of abuse by citizens. People tend to value services that are free of charge low.
Regarding the showcase of #Scandinavian countries, they cannot be the benchmark. I'm no #anthropologist but I'd suspect that the following factors influence this result:
1) relatively...
(2/n)
small, and until recently, a fairly
homogeneous population.
2) Rich and highly educated populations.
3) Centuries of common enterprise (e.g. #Viking raids.) Mist other countries lack such characteristics.
Very different: Native American tribes.
There might be other factors.
People, generally, tend to be ill-disciplined in huge crowds where individual stakeholdership and malfeasance don't lead to ostracism, as in ancient times. (My hypothesis)
Therefore,...
(3/3)
...even public goods must have a monetary, and not just an intrinsic value. This can be offset by #UBI.
It's a zero-sum game, really, but leads to significantly different results, IMHO.
//
@dlakelan
Thank you, my thinking.
I see it the same way, you put it more succinctly.
@tshepang @HistoPol @jsbarretto
You can't witness the degree of preference though. Suppose you have two beaches, one has better surfing. On any given day 1000 people go to both beaches. Both beaches are "equally good" right? What if I told you that the 1000 surfers would pay $40 to park there, but the 1000 other beach goers would only pay $5. It's not enough to see how many people go where to give you good information about how to allocate resources.
@tshepang
My impression would be that it generates more resources, as more money is generated.
@dlakelan @jsbarretto
I have to head out. Was great chatting with you all. 😀
I will check back to this convo. Have a nice eve.
@tshepang @HistoPol @jsbarretto
For example it might tell you to allocate resources to a special bus that goes to the surfing beach that can take surfboards, where you can board the bus a few miles away in some kind of parking structure, enabling more people to surf the beach without requiring us to build parking next to the beach. Just as an example.
@tshepang @HistoPol @jsbarretto
In general there are other ways you can gain information, but money transactions makes for a single comparable measuring stick between any goods and services, do you enhance the beach, or have more concerts in the park, or have more bus transport or plant more fish in lakes or provide more educational opportunities for kids or ... having a way to compare everything (price) is vastly superior to a hodgepodge of surveys and whatnot.
@tshepang @HistoPol @jsbarretto
The problem is we have made money be a thing you only get for working for wages etc. Suppose we start charging reasonable prices for all sorts of public goods, the linux kernel, beach access, census data... whatever. But then on the other hand, everyone gets an equal UBI of maybe $40000/yr which is more or less say twice the average cost of consuming all the public goods we started charging for. So you can buy a typical quantity of the public goods, plus $20k
@tshepang @HistoPol @jsbarretto
The money charged for the public goods can go to public maintenance, and whatever isn't used there, can be paid out again by the govt as part of paying the UBI. you're recycling money, using it as an information-carrier. That's how it's supposed to work, to direct resources where they're needed. If you started charging for public goods you'd triple or quadruple the GDP, but to keep the consumption constant you'd need a lot more money circulation... ie the UBI
The 40k is, the way I understand it, an example.
Yes, of course, this would only be a basic (=minimal) income.
Also, the big issue is not only purchasing power (dis)parities b/w countries, but b/w regions, e.g. cities and rural areas.
The #UBI would need to be converted using PPP (Purchasing Power Parities) for the basic goods defined.
Price differences are particularly huge for housing, as we all know.
@dlakelan @jsbarretto
I agree with your train of thought, except for the library. They have always been free, and I did not see people reading too many books.
#UBI doesn't mean everybody's rich and can afford everything.
Trade-off have you be made, e.g. for sick people, as they have a disproportionate share of healthcare costs.
These above-average expenditures should never crowd out literature.
Libraries should remain free for all residents.
...correct, and that could lead to overconsumption for some people, as they would not get anything else instead.
@tshepang
The corruption and inflation questions are good questions though. IMHO a transition to UBI should proceed through a gradual process. For example if we give out 10% of GDP/capita, and then slowly transition more services to payed consumption, GDP would grow and therefore UBI would grow.
Corruption needs a different solution entirely. There are plenty of services that serve the corrupt not the supposed targets. Bridges to nowhere etc.
@HistoPol @jsbarretto
It would really be interesting to have a rather complete chart of (possible*) public services differentiated by "insurance-like quality" vs. "should be priced" or something.
*some services might only make sense for some countries, e.g. heating in the tropics, not sensible, but essential in northern countries. Air condition, contrary example.
@tshepang
Apart from being administratively impossible to have an individual price deflator, it is also not the correct approach. Just b/c s.o. needs or wants more, doesn't mean the public has to foot the bill.
I can see this for people with proven disabilities but not for much else. This is exactly why UBI is a great concept: more efficiency through personal choice.
@HistoPol @jsbarretto give people a free service, take it away, and see the reaction... the fight that will ensue will show just how much they value such.
Abuse may exist, but that is no reason to have others suffer. UBI is kool, but may not be enough to cover essential things like medical (in the US, but also elsewhere, to a lesser extent) and housing costs.
Joshua Barretto
HistoPol (#HP) 🏴 🇺🇸 🏴
tshepang
Daniel Lakeland