Guaranteed Basic Income for All

[Imploding Turtle]

Come on you clever economists who think this is a good idea.

Suppose all adults get £1000.00 per month BI.

What incentive do the millions and millions of cleaners, porters, waiting staff, bar staff, teaching assistants, dinner ladies, temps, office clerks, receptionists, telephonists, restaurant workers, chefs/cooks, etc etc who work part time and/or in low paid jobs have to actually carry on doing their jobs?

Wages.

Do you think everyone would stop working if their most basic needs were paid for? If that was true then literally no one would be working right now and everyone would be on JSA or Universal credit.


Edit: and by the way, with a Basic Income, those people you just referred to wouldn't lose any of their BI just because they've done some work and earned some wages. But under the current system people working part time are losing money from things like JSA and Universal Credit simply for choosing to work part time.

So if all these people would stop working just because their most basic needs are met, then why are any of them working part-time at all?

[If it be your will]

.

[dsr]

I though the idea of this was that everyone got paid the basic income whether they worked or not. Then it was their own choice whether to work and get extra money, or not to work and live of the charity of the state.

(As opposed to the current tax credit system, where marginal tax rates can be over 70%.)

[If it be your will]

.

[If it be your will]

.

[Dante.El.Chunk]

Come on you clever economists who think this is a good idea.

Suppose all adults get £1000.00 per month BI.

What incentive do the millions and millions of cleaners, porters, waiting staff, bar staff, teaching assistants, dinner ladies, temps, office clerks, receptionists, telephonists, restaurant workers, chefs/cooks, etc etc who work part time and/or in low paid jobs have to actually carry on doing their jobs?

Would you work a 30 hour week getting up at 5am in the morning when you get given the same amount in "guaranteed income" for doing diddly-squat?

First to answer this question authoratively wins a perpetual motion machine.

The incentive is that you would get a lot more money, you wouldn't get the same by doing nothing.

My situation is probably the only situation where I would get paid the same to work as I would to cream off a basic income, so I can say, with some authority, that most of the people I work with and myself would still continue doing what we do. If that were not true, we'd all already be out there working commercially.

The simple reason why I am bringing my situation up so much regarding this topic is to break the idea that the only two options are to live off BI or go out and work for money. There are other ways.

Imagine what the couple with their first kid would be able to do having their immediate needs considered, they could take as long as they liked for maternity (feasibly the first 5 years of the child's life).

Imagine the people who are looking after sick loved ones.

Imagine those who would volunteer full time for whatever needy cause they liked/agreed with?

What about the creative types, who simply need a little time honing their craft without worrying about food?

If your basic needs are covered, it gives you far more options.

These service sector jobs you mentioned would have to pay more to entice people to do them, which is no bad thing.

All this being said, I am no economics expert but I do concede that if all those service sector people are taking more in wages then ultimately prices will shoot up. What to do? Sod knows.

The debate is good, keep it going.

[Rowls]

So if all these people would stop working just because their most basic needs are met, then why are any of them working part-time at all?

This question lacks any kind of logical progression. Yes, I imagine millions of low paid workers would not bother doing their work at all if they got paid the same for doing nothing. They'd probably look for much easier work to fill their time but they'd be very picky about what they did.

"Inflation is always and everywhere a monetary phenomenon" - Milton Friedman.

Printing money is one way of causing inflation. There are others. Inflation in Britain in the 70s was driven (amongst other things) by union wage demands being constantly met and the linking of wages to prices.

The incentive is that you would get a lot more money, you wouldn't get the same by doing nothing.

I don't think you understand incentives properly. That incentive is there right now without any BI. If you bring in a BI the incentive to earn "a lot more money" doesn't increase; it diminishes. Drastically.

[Rowls]

These service sector jobs you mentioned would have to pay more to entice people to do them, which is no bad thing.

They'd have to pay substantially more.

Which would cause wage inflation and .... *bingo*

Inflation!

[Rowls]

All this being said, I am no economics expert but I do concede that if all those service sector people are taking more in wages then ultimately prices will shoot up. What to do? Sod knows.

The debate is good, keep it going.

At least you're acknowledging what others are trying to wish away.

******

There are some simple truths in economics - the more you redistribute wealth, the worse the economy performs (generally) and the less money you have to play with.

The people who think a BI would "work" think it would "work" based on maths: "Ah, there's enough money therefore it will work!"

I don't doubt their maths. I'm sure they're right about that.

What is consistently missed is the human psychological reaction to money. It's why economists are always wrong about everything, all of the time.

I don't dare say my predictions are any more 'accurate' than anybody else's. But I don't see any of the advocates of a BI even bothering to take into account the psychological effects of giving everyone in the country £1000.00 per month. On that basis alone, my predictions are far less wrong.

[Dante.El.Chunk]

I don't think you understand incentives properly. That incentive is there right now without any BI. If you bring in a BI the incentive to earn "a lot more money" doesn't increase; it diminishes. Drastically.

Well, to my understanding, basic income is just that, basic. The people who I have spoken to who are trying to get it running here in Scotland are not advocating people getting £1000 a month for nothing. The number I have heard quoted is more around £750. The intention is to give people enough to live on and no more.

However there would likely be inflation and adjusting for it could well come to the magical £1000 figure but that's just it. That figure would not be enough to drive a fancy car, it would not be enough to have a £700 smartphone, it would not be enough to go out to dinner once a week, it wouldn't be enough to travel abroad once a year. Of course people are free to do what they want with their money so perhaps it could get misspent, and I fully expect that there would be a psychological bedding in period, for instance, my first proper job was working for BT doing nights, was a very well paid job for an 18 year old, the sheer amount of wastefulness I had in me shames me to admit.

My point is that basic income is to cover rent, essential bills and food, and not a lot else.

[Rowls]

I could go out once a week and holiday abroad once (or twice) a year easily on £1000.00 per month.

And I'd have all the time in the world to top up my "basic income" however I pleased - which I would.

It's a recipe for disaster.

[Rowls]

Of course, a couple living together would have £2000 per month to live on. That's even easier!

[Dante.El.Chunk]

I could go out once a week and holiday abroad once (or twice) a year easily on £1000.00 per month.

And I'd have all the time in the world to top up my "basic income" however I pleased - which I would.

It's a recipe for disaster.

Ok firstly you seem to have ignored my point that the £1000 quoted is an overestimate, secondly you have ignored my concession that inflation would happen, thirdly you are ignoring my repeated statement that the money is only going to cover the basic needs of people.

Basic Income would be the equivalent of what people get on JSA plus Housing plus the council tax reduction. It is not enough to live a fancy life on.

I understand you have your strong view but it would be nice to get a more reasonable debate going.

[Rowls]

I'm simply pointing out that the proposed figures are too high.

If Gordon Brown managed to get us into so much debt with his tax credits, imagine how much worse it would be with a universal basic income? It would be many times more expensive.

No country could ever afford to do this.

It would push up taxes massively, it would wreck public finances (which are already parlous enough) and it would cause inflation meaning that whatever figure was chosen was constantly worth less and less.

It would cripple the economy as people abandoned low paid jobs, would massively increase immigration (if we vote to remain in the EU) as migrant-workers sought to take advantage of our labour market - which would in turn place more stress on the public services and further undermine public finances.

The whole thing would quickly crumble into a fiasco and disaster.

Also, I DID acknowledge that you accept it would cause inflation.

[Rowls]

I'm simply pointing out that the proposed figures are too high.

By which I don't mean to imply that a lower figure would "work" - it wouldn't.

Either the figure is too high to afford or so low as to not provide the sustenance it is supposed to provide. This is without taking into account social, socio-econoic and psychological damage any scheme would cause.

[Dante.El.Chunk]

I agree with you that £1000 is too high, and said as such. I think a lot has been derived from the swiss version but that is under a different and better economy than our own, and costs generally match up (last I checked) to what we and they earn and pay.

In my version of BI basics are covered and no more - you want something fancy, go and earn it. Bear in mind that I ACTUALLY live this life right now, and have been doing for 6 years and let me tell you - if the opportunity comes up to earn some cash - I damned well take it. This is even before you consider that I already donate between 37 and 50 hours a week of my time to "profitless" activities. I have taken on very low paid work - chopping wood -shovelling snow in winter - fixing computers - Dog sitting (which I actually get paid a MASSIVE 0.83p an hour, before perks)

Did Gordon Brown get us into so much debt with tax credits? I would differ on that, not that I am a big Brown fan, but I would also urge party politics well out of this debate. I was led to believe that the USA housing market crash and the banking system failures (greed) caused a domino effect on us and was the major contributor to the economic crisis.

Can you actually demonstrate that it would cost more when all is said and done? We would have a lot of public sector worker not needed for means testing, job centres would be a thing of the past, benefit fraud departments vanish, pension departments go the way of the dodo.

However one cost that did not exist before but should, in the event of BI, is some sort of financial management helpline/website/call centre. I definitely agree that a lot of people would be overwhelmed with such a change in their lives and they might cock up big time. This happened to a number of people in nearby Lockerbie who got compo payouts after the air crash and became hardened druggies/alcoholics. Not the majority mind, but a fair few.

It definitely would put up taxes, I have heard figures quoted as high as 55%. Would this wreck our public finances? sounds like it would raise quite a lot helping to cover the cost of BI - it seems inseparable from BI actually.

I am starting to think I am going to be a pain to debate with, on the one hand I am the skinflint conservative type living in a monastery who checks every penny before spending and works hard etc. And on the other hand I am the hippy lefty volunteering full time and meditating.

[Imploding Turtle]

Ok firstly you seem to have ignored my point that the £1000 quoted is an overestimate, secondly you have ignored my concession that inflation would happen, thirdly you are ignoring my repeated statement that the money is only going to cover the basic needs of people.

Basic Income would be the equivalent of what people get on JSA plus Housing plus the council tax reduction. It is not enough to live a fancy life on.

I understand you have your strong view but it would be nice to get a more reasonable debate going.

You'll find that with Rowls he'll have very strong views without being at all informed. He simply ignores information that is inconvenient to his position. It doesn't matter to home that he is over-estimating BI in the UK. it doesn't matter to him that only the very basics would be funded for. It doesn't even matter to him that while he admits he would work to top up his BI that he's arguing as if he's the only one in the world who would with his "millions quitting employment" position.

Facts and contradictory information are irrelevant. He'll argue past them as if they're not there.

[Dante.El.Chunk]

To simplify for onlookers. I really agree with the idea and motivations of BI.

Working out the economics would be a big calculation. I do not think that it is impossible.

Whilst I would really like it to be implemented I do see some things that need to be worked out first and I do not think that we are ready to go to polling on this matter - we need more data and analysis.

I completely disagree with the notion that everyone would do nothing or only apply for high paid jobs. Lazing around all day frequently causes depression and is probably the worst use of ones body -physically speaking. So if the body and the mind are unhappy - the conditions are not suitable for our well being.

When I speak of the place I live - I have only spoke in terms of myself, but there are people who seem to have limitless energy doing their work - earning money with another part time job, going to all the prayers. Equally so, I have seen some right lazy so and so's cart up. So no "everyone" would rarely act in the same way given any circumstances, especially this one - financial freedom is a dream for so many people - who knows how they will react.

I don't wish to be balanced for balance's sake but there are some big questions over this issue - that I personally hope can be cleared up

[Rowls]

Did Gordon Brown get us into so much debt with tax credits? ... I was led to believe that the USA housing market crash and the banking system failures (greed) caused a domino effect on us and was the major contributor to the economic crisis.

Debt. Financial crisis. Different things.
Yes, Gordon Brown's tax credits did get us into so much debt.
The debt meant we had no money or room to manoeuvre when the financial crisis hit.

It definitely would put up taxes, I have heard figures quoted as high as 55%. Would this wreck our public finances? sounds like it would raise quite a lot helping to cover the cost of BI - it seems inseparable from BI actually.

Experience has shown this would lower tax incomes. You'd have to deal with public expenditure going up whilst revenue went down.

I am starting to think I am going to be a pain to debate with, on the one hand I am the skinflint conservative type living in a monastery who checks every penny before spending and works hard etc. And on the other hand I am the hippy lefty volunteering full time and meditating.

Ha! Well, we'll just have to draw a line under it. I don't think either of us is going to convince the other.

I'd be very happy for a foreign country to introduce such a scheme and see how it pans out for them. I'm convinced it would be an utter Venezuela style shambles.

I don't know of any effective centralised economy in the history of the world and there are plenty of examples to choose.

Maoist China.
Communist Soviets.
Modern day Venezuela.
North Korea.
etc etc

[Dante.El.Chunk]

You'll find that with Rowls he'll have very strong views without being at all informed. He simply ignores information that is inconvenient to his position. It doesn't matter to home that he is over-estimating BI in the UK. it doesn't matter to him that only the very basics would be funded for. It doesn't even matter to him that while he admits he would work to top up his BI that he's arguing as if he's the only one in the world who would with his "millions quitting employment" position.

Facts and contradictory information are irrelevant. He'll argue past them as if they're not there.

Thing is, I have been reading CM and now UTC since our 3-2 loss at home to Wolves when Barry Knight was Tw*t of the week. ( I hated him so much)

Because of the CM palava I could never seem to keep an account for too long so I gave up posting and just read. However I did post a bit as The_Funk.

What I am getting at is I am well acquainted with his style (or lack thereof).

I will nevertheless attempt to hold him to a higher quality of debate.

[Rowls]

I argue my opinions.

Turtle just argue in "facts".

All of what I post is my opinion.

Turtle speaks nothing but Truth and Fact. Everything Turtlebrains says is a Fact. It's all black and white to him.

[Dante.El.Chunk]

I have also read enough to realise Rowls and Imploding Turtle do not like each other.....

Rowls you are a pain to argue with though.....

[Rowls]

We'll have to wait and see if anyone is daft enough to implement it.

I only argue for what I believe in (except when I'm winding people up) but it's been entertaining to argue with somebody more sensible for a change Dante.

[Rowls]

What it's like to try and debate with ImplodingCharlieTurtle:

[If it be your will]

.

[Rowls]

I think Rowls has won this, I'm afraid. He has achieved exactly what he set out to do - put an end to the discussion. I hope we all have things to take away and think about, ready for the real debate when it comes.

I managed to have a civilised debate with Dante.

But not Turtle.

[Paul Waine]

It would depend on where you were/your children are on the income spectrum, of course. If both were anywhere in the bottom half (indeed probably anywhere outside the top third), statistically speaking it would be a fairly close run thing.

Additionally, the main inflation indices don't fully take into account house prices. Here's a thought experiment (I'm assuming you own a house): If you bought your house on your income alone 30 years ago, the chances are it would now require two incomes of the same profession to be able to buy it now, despite the asset being 30 years older. So even though it might appear your children are more affluent than you were, they almost certainly aren't when it comes to buying a house.

(Okay, Burnley is a bad example, because house prices haven't risen to the extent they have elsewhere in the UK, but I bet it still works, even in Burnley. In London, well, it might be 5 equivalent incomes of the same profession to buy the same house there.)

Think about all the things that exist today and think back to the same/equivalent 30 years ago - mid-1980s:
1) It was only early 80s that Freddie Laker tried to establish low cost flights (though he didn't keep going for long). Now we all take for granted the ability to fly to European destinations for a w/end - or a football tournament in France. Many book their holidays flying inter-continental, Dubai, Thailand, Caribbean, Disney Land, Vegas and California.
2) Laptops and Smart phones. In 1980s there were a few IBM PCs in a few offices. "Mobile" phones were shaped like a brick and could (just about) make a phone call.
3) Computer games - I remember buying my young son a "Mega Drive" and Sonic the Hedgehog. I think that was early 90s.
4) Numbers going to university today - over 40% (perhaps) compared with less than 10% in 1980s (my estimate - it was less than 5% in 70s).
5) I had a good graduate job in 1975 - starting salary £1,750. Similar positions now are close to up to 20 times higher. £1,750 in 1975 is a little less than £13,000 in 2015 according to RPI. So, let's say, starting salaries are more than 2 times higher in real terms.
I know these stats are graduate jobs, but same applies to many other roles that might not require graduate training, e.g. tube drivers.

Housing is a very difficult question - but there was a north/south divide in prices when I moved from Manchester to London nearly 30 years ago. Prices in and around London are ridiculous now. This is a problem and a challenge - though the younger generation all appear still to want to live and work in London (based on my colleagues at work). Similarly, university fees are "a change" from 30 years ago though these is more a "middle classes" and overseas student (non-EU) tax than a charge that the lower earners are required to pay.

I met a senior sports IT guy today. It put the thought in my mind that automation and technology doesn't reduce the number of jobs, but changes the nature of the roles. We are all familiar with the performance stats for footballers. There's a whole new IT industry supporting this "money ball" approach to sport. I guess there are also a large number of people in the background keeping messages boards, blogs and other www infrastructure "flying."

[Paul Waine]

Hey Guys, I've been busy today - but I was enjoying this debate.

Rowls has raised some good points re incentives. If UBI is possible to work the incentives must be there for everyone to make it work. There's no benefit in a system that creates disincentives for the potentially "high contributors" to withdraw their contributions. If UBI is based on a political system that wants to disenfranchise a part of society and to take "too much" from them to benefit the "dominant class" then UBI won't last very long. I think Cambodia under Pol Pot tried such a system (Killing Fields). In the 1960s/70s the marginal rate of UK income tax was 98% (83% earned income plus 15% surcharge on dividends and interest etc). That lead to the people who were high earners moving elsewhere - or spending on "unproductive" allowable expenditure as it only cost them 2%. When these tax rates were changed the UK government tax take grew very significantly. It doesn't pay to be greedy or envious of the "haves" if you want to be "generous" to the "have littles."

I'm not knowledgeable about Buddhism (I even had to check the spelling!). I'm guessing that generosity of spirit to all "god's creatures" is part of the creed.

UTC

[Dante.El.Chunk]

I'm not knowledgeable about Buddhism (I even had to check the spelling!). I'm guessing that generosity of spirit to all "god's creatures" is part of the creed.

Yes, the way it is worded is that things should be done "for the benefit of all sentient beings".

I would really like to point out that I am no monk. I am a total beginner to those around me, but having been here for so long that I have picked up more than a few principles.

[Hipper]

My point is that basic income is to cover rent, essential bills and food, and not a lot else.

How about the BI being paid in kind - shelter, clothing, food etc. - rather then money. Perhaps like you live now?

If someone then wants more they must earn it.

Not sure how you would allow for children in this case but perhaps we can work it out. The idea does take into account geographical price differences, as long as HM Government judge that fairly.

[Hipper]

4). Numbers going to university today - over 40% (perhaps) compared with less than 10% in 1980s (my estimate - it was less than 5% in 70s).

Interesting you mention this as perhaps we can learn from it.

University education in the 1970s was paid for mostly by the state except for those whose parents earned above a certain income - they were supposed to get parental support.

As the numbers of students rose due to government encouraging more university education the above funding method proved too costly. Now students have to pay for their education by borrowing.

This seems another good idea - free university education - that proved too costly.

[Hipper]

2030 tonight, BBC Radio 4:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b07jyrdq" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[Goalposts]

i started reading this thread as i thought it was a joke, and gave up when people on here were seriously advocating it....beyond bonkers and shows the level of affectedness and to what level people are anaesthetized to reality..

[Imploding Turtle]

Economist say that it can work an none of the trials for it has been a failure. But goalposts says it's all bullshit so that's it everyone. Never mind.

[Rowls]

Economist say that it can work an none of the trials for it has been a failure. But goalposts says it's all bullshit so that's it everyone. Never mind.

Proof that it won't work, if anyone needed it.

[Imploding Turtle]

I think it could work and I think its time may come relatively soon. My caveat is that, if we do this, and you then screw it up - you're on your own. If you starve to death after being given this, I'd have to assume that was what you wanted. That, I suspect, won't be acceptable to many of its proposers.

How is that caveat any different to how things are now?

[If it be your will]

.

[If it be your will]

.

[Hipper]

I happened to hear the last 10 minutes and thought "I wonder if that thread will reappear." And here it is! I've downloaded the rest now.

Two thoughts: First, the "It's bonkers" brigade can be safely ignored now. That debate was won by the "It's not bonkers" side many years ago (hands down), and has irreversibly moved on. The current debate is how can it be made to work, and what unforeseen unintended consequences might there be?

Second, was anyone else surprised by how thoughtful, intelligent and measured Ed Miliband came across, now that he's not campaigning? This seems to happen all the time when politicians (of all persuasions) wind-down. How on earth did this version of Ed Miliband become persuaded that the 'Edstone' was a good idea, for instance? What is it that makes electioneering turn sensible people into risible laughing stocks?

MPs are usually impressive when being able to talk freely and not having to be on their guard for public viewing through the warped lens of the media (media scrutiny it's called). I consider most of them well meaning hard working with an extraordinary capacity for storing and recalling information. However if they make the slightest slip up they can be destroyed - e.g. Andrea Leadsom.

What I took from this interesting but too short programme was that some on the left and right were both in favour and against the idea.

On the left some thought it would be the final nail in the coffin of workers and that is why the far right likes the idea.

Nowhere did it say how this would work economically - how much would it be, how it's paid for, the economic consequences (inflation etc.).

[If it be your will]

.

[If it be your will]

.

[If it be your will]

.

[Goalposts]

This is funny and shows those on this board who have a utopian view and those who lean more to the dystopian view. and the reality that a utopian world or civilization has never existed and never will because there is a fundamental flaw. Human beings and human nature .

[If it be your will]

.

[CrosspoolClarets]

As someone who thinks Jeremy Corbyn is a loony more suited to protesting than governing, I'm naturally inclined to dislike this idea. Also, it perpetuates the notion that some in society get something for nothing and there is no incentive to work.

However, there are one or two areas not far off where we live now that pay people a huge amount for basic jobs in the public sector (e.g. a cleaner) and their pay is not far off what others earn (e.g. a qualified teacher). Those independant areas of the world have high living standards and what to me appears to be good happiness / satisfaction (I am advising those areas currently so don't want to be too specific).

That logic is not far off the guarentee of basic income, the one difference is that you need a job first. I'm not sure it would work in the UK but as long as quality of life is high enough for envy not to take over, it certainly works elsewhere.

[Paul Waine]

At last. A major UK party taking a serious look at a universal basic income:

http://www.theguardian.com/politics/201 ... sic-income" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

This is all happening even quicker than I imagined.

To quote from theguardian.com (attached):

"A full-blown basic income is regarded by most economists as prohibitively expensive; but a recent Compass report on the issue argued that a transitional system could be created at an annual cost of £8bn a year, which would leave many means-tested benefits in place.

The tax-free personal allowance, currently worth £11,000, would be abolished, and tax rates would rise; but every adult would receive a payment of £71 a week – or £51 for pensioners – and £59 for children. The authors claim such a system would cut child poverty by 45%, and that 60% of those in the bottom fifth of the income distribution would gain more than 20%."

So, the idea of "universal basic income" is to replace mean-tested benefits... but, a "transitional system" could be created leaving (many) means-tested benefits in place.

Everyone's tax free personal allowance abolished - and tax rates would rise.

I wonder when someone will point out that if you earn more than £100,000 p.a. (all income) you already lose the tax-free personal allowance. I'm not sure how many are in this category, I think it includes all senior government ministers (and opposition leader) plus all (most) senior civil servants.

Sorry, if it be your will, I can't see this happening. At least, not until Burnley have won the Premier League and the European Championship more than 100 times.

[jackmiggins]

I know that I will be lambasted by all the Economics/business studies gurus (that are all earning vast wads of wealth for the country .........not), but not one of these, that I know, has ever explained satisfactorily to me why printing more money has any effect on our economy. Does it send seismic waves across the channel, & if so, how? It is abstract, pure & simple.

How is this linked to Government Bonds & the eternal debt every country owes to the Bankers of the World? Are these bonds actually worth anything, other than a guarantee that I of Eton, promise to pay you, of Eton, a never ending & increasing repayment every single, stinking month until our blue blood genes can stagger on for no longer (or until the Port runs dry)?

I'm one of the lucky few that work pretty much every single hour that I'm awake, I have no tax allowance, so quite a bit goes back to the treasury coffers to pay administrators & the like. I'm probably one of those people, that you would assume, resent money being paid to less fortunate folk, & yes, the lazy. Not a jot, I would much prefer that every man & jack had cash in their pocket to spend. Can anyone offer me a reasoned argument that this would harm our illustrious economy????

[Sidney1st]

A guaranteed basic income for all is a commendable idea.

The main issue I see though is the difference in cost of living in North & South.

Will the guaranteed basic income be the same across the country, or will be it be different to reflect the cost of living differences?

[JohnMcGreal]

No surprise to see that its Corbyn who's keen to research this. Whether you agree with the principle or not, it has to be explored as an option for the future.

Work used to equal pay. But what happens when work is massively reduced and made obsolete? People will still need money to live.

Its an interesting idea that's definitely worth exploring.

[Paul Waine]

Coming up to the "holiday season." Saw this NY Times article "Free Cash in Finland. Must be Jobless."

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/12/17/busin ... d=li-share" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Does this article progress the debate?

Do "small scale" experiments, I.e. where a small proportion receive UBI make the case for UBI? Or, does it prove that UBI can't work because there isn't enough money in the economy (any economy) to enable it to work?

Is there irony in Finland focusing on the problems/demise of Nokia - which produce mobile phones for the "global" markets - as addressing "the deep need to find effective means to alleviate the perils of globalization" as stated in NY Times.

Are there any "downsides" to globalisation? Or, does globalisation enable the emerging economies to compete with established economies - and so, assist in re-distributing wealth from the wealthy nations (generally, western economies) to the emerging economies?