Comment by legutierr | Hacker News Reader

Comment by legutierr | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

Basic Income is not Communism. Communism is state control of the means of production, and centralized planning of the entire economy.

Whether Basic Income is Socialism depends on your definition of Socialism. If you go by the definition found on wikipedia, which I think is pretty standard, BI is not Socialism either. [1]

Basic Income is redistributive, but so is the US tax system, as it has been for nearly 100 years. It is a more aggressive and explicit redistribution scheme, but it is not of an entirely dissimilar nature, nor is it incompatible with free-market capitalism.

So regardless of one's opinion of Socialism and Communism, whether or not socialism and communism typically fail has no bearing on whether a basic income would be successful, because they are different things.

However, when you say:

> Socialism and Communism fail every time they are tried. Every time.

You should consider that the vast majority of the world's large economies are described as "mixed economies" that combine elements of socialism and laissez faire capitalism. Many, if not most of these have been mixed--combining Socialist and Capitalist policies in one way or another--for decades, if not for more than a century. So, unless you are going to assert that the modern economic order is a "failure", I think you should rethink this sentiment.

> The author is an economic idiot.

Strong words probably not best used in this situation.

If "redistribution" of economic surplus (i.e. profit/income) is a feature of Communism and Socialism, it is not the most important feature of these ideologies, which concern themselves with limiting or eliminating private property.

In fact, I would assert that redistribution is a specifically Capitalist response to the Socialist critique of private property and markets: it is a way to reduce economic injustice by focusing entirely on the distribution of surplus, while leaving private property at the core of the economic system, and while also relying on markets to determine prices and the appropriate allocation of investment.

[1] "Socialism is an economic system characterised by social ownership of the means of production and co-operative management of the economy." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socialism

"You should consider that the vast majority of the world's large economies are described as "mixed economies" that combine elements of socialism and laissez faire capitalism."

This explains nicely why the world economy is collapsing in a heap of failed Keynesian (aka Socialist) policies and endless mountains of debt that can't be repaid under any circumstances. From Japan's rapidly collapsing economy (so bankrupt all they have left is to print their currency to oblivion), to America's bankruptcy (doesn't even need explanation), to China's bankruptcy (endless rounds of stimulus, requiring ever more stimulus to get the same fake GDP growth, corporate debt larger than GDP, and several times their sovereign fund, and 40% of their GDP going to just paying against debt), to the implosion of countries such as Greece / Spain / Portugal / France / Italy, all of which are being propped up temporarily by a central banking printing bonanza that is destroying standards of living.

I'm not aware of major mixed economies that possess any meaningful amounts of laissez-faire Capitalism. Japan, US, China, Britain, India, Germany, Mexico, Brazil, Canada, Italy, Australia, South Korea, Russia (aka the largest economies in the world) possess approximately zero laissez-faire Capitalism in their respective economies. I'd challenge someone to produce a major industry in any one of those countries that is actually completely unregulated by the state and untaxed (both of which are requirements of hands-off Capitalism); or even examples of zero regulation with very little taxation, as the US had in the 19th century.

Internet, steel, building, manufacturing, energy in general, oil, nuclear, automobiles, railroads, telecom, commodities, housing, banking / finance --- where's the laissez-faire, aka completely unregulated, again? Doesn't exist.

Your response is largely a red herring. The primary point of my post was to say that Basic Income has nothing to do with Socialism.

I was not asserting that the way that mixed economies work today is ideal or even desirable. However, I was asserting that these economies have been largely successful, which it seems you disagree with. However, that's really beside the point.

I used the term "laissez-faire Capitalism" to describe Capitalism in its pure form, not to say that it is found in mixed economies per se. Maybe I should have just said "Capitalism." Again, I don't think it makes a difference.

Making - forcing - BI to work will end up with the same basic consequences. BI is supposed to be enough to live on - defined upwards as those with vested interests and ulterior motives fight to increase that amount (ex.: US poverty line is 20x world median income, deeming 87% of all "poor"). Such a large change to an economy will cause - go figure - a large change on the economy; supply-and-demand will render BI to low and require increase, an inflationary spiral. Price controls will be imposed to counteract these shocking consequences, with the same results history has seen many times. All this will lead to some form of ever-tightening authoritarianism, as polypragmatons compel, by threat of violence, others to submit to their "I know better" self-righteousness.

Encourage charity for the truly needy; everyone else is a competent capable adult and can provide his own needs.

You make a number of predictions here which are really only based on conjecture. Why are you so certain that inflation will be a problem under BI? And why would price controls be inevitable?

The fact is that your opposition is a moral one, as your last statement shows.

I predict inflation will be a problem with BI because: currency units are a representation of value, forced redistribution stretches that representation to include a distinct lack of value (wasn't earned), ergo the value represented by that currency unit decreases - to wit, inflation.

Price controls are inevitable because as more people live on free money (no need to work if you just opt for frugality), basic prices will rise because demand rises against supply, causing political pressures to keep those prices down by fiat.

Try understanding someone's reasoning before insulting it.

Don't peg BI to inflation ("actual" or "projected" - "targeted" is probably appropriate).

That way, if "supply-and-demand [...] render BI too low" because too many dollars are chasing too few goods, more people are motivated to move into the market and help produce. On the flip-side, when we hit a deflationary period real BI will rise, and people will pursue other interests rather than scrap for jobs that don't exist.

If you're going to add footnotes, you probably shouldn't be citing wikipedia.

Capitalism is a system whereby "capitalists" (people with capital) use their capital as investments in business ventures. The person who risks the capital (the capitalist) has control over the outcomes of the business. You can have free markets without capitalism, and capitalism without free markets.

"Economic injustice" has nothing to do with anything. If you don't have capital you can't be a capitalist.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com