Thursday, July 12, 2018

U.B.I. lives entirely in people’s heads

от работы кони дохнут
от работы кони дохнут

молочные реки/кисельные берега (кожнаму попо требнозди), или нетрудящийся, да не ест ?

пропро образ UBI  : 

[рекомендую сходить по ссылке, ниже выдержки]
Thomas Malthus posited that the poverty subsidies allowed couples to rear families before their actual earnings allowed it. His contemporary David Ricardo complained that the Speenhamland model was a prosperity drain, inviting “imprudence, by offering it a portion of the wages of prudence and industry.” Karl Marx attacked the system years later, in “Das Kapital,” suggesting that it had kept labor wages low, while Karl Polanyi, the economic historian, cast Speenhamland as the original sin of industrial capitalism, making lower classes irrelevant to the labor market just as new production mechanisms were being built. When the Speenhamland system ended, in 1834, people were plunged into a labor machine in which they had no role or say. The commission that repealed the system replaced it with Dickensian workhouses—a corrective, at the opposite extreme, for a program that, everyone agreed, had failed.
According to Daniel P. Moynihan, another Nixon adviser, who, in 1973, published a book about the effort, Speenhamland was the beginning of a push that led the President’s program, the Family Assistance Plan, toward a work requirement—an element that he had not included until then.

A universal basic income, or U.B.I., is a fixed income that every adult—rich or poor, working or idle—automatically receives from the government.

A UBI is a lesson and an ideal, not just an economic policy. The ideal is that a society, as a first priority, should look out for its people’s survival; the lesson is that possibly it can do so without unequal redistributive plans.
Recent interest in U.B.I. has been widespread but wary. Last year, Finland launched a pilot version of basic income; this spring, the government decided not to extend the program beyond this year, signalling doubt. Other trials continue. Pilots have run in Canada, the Netherlands, Scotland, and Iran. ...  Last year, Stanford launched a Basic Income Lab to pursue, as it were, basic research.

... is a U.B.I. fiscally sustainable? It’s unclear. 

A big reason for chariness with a U.B.I. is that, so far, the program lives in people’s heads, untried on a national scale. 

дальше, больше подробностей и деталей, но факт сам по себе любопытный: страны, с которых берут пример наши либеральные экономисты, думают совсем в другом направлении: не как отнять, а как удобней дать 

No comments:

Post a Comment