Bonam

It's a problematic decision since it is clearly discriminatory, but one of many such that will arise in response to the reality of millions of refugees with very different cultural values entering Germany. Germany decided to run a very large scale, irreversible social experiment on itself, and we will see the results over the coming years. The influx of refugees will likely result in some of the "high-minded" Western ideals being compromised to maintain some semblance of social order. Whether individual decisions like this one are the right ones to make will only become evident in retrospect.

Someone lives in fantasy land lol. Physical attractiveness is the greatest determinant of all kinds of social privilege, both for males and females.

Yeah, a $5k GAI wouldn't do much and increasing government spending by $300 billion is implausible. As nice of an idea as it may seem, it doesn't look mathematically plausible in Canada at present.

In the US, the equivalent program would be 220 million * 12k/year = 2.6 trillion/year, while 1.2 trillion of current programs could be cancelled, meaning additional expenditures of 1.4 trillion/year. That's about 7% of GDP. US GDP is $19 trillion, the federal government is $3.8 trillion (20%), states are $1.7 trillion (9%) and cities are also ~$1.7 trillion (9%). So the total size of US government is ~38% of GDP, and would have to increase to ~45% of GDP to implement this program. Looking at the numbers above... the US could probably afford it, but Canada couldn't really... 57% of GDP is just too big of a government burden.

The 6% of GDP was for the US, for Canada it would be higher (since GDP per capita is lower while the poverty line is higher). The 6% also already included redirecting the funds from other programs that could be cancelled into the fund for this program. In Canada, we're talking about 18k/year to 22 million people, which is $400 billion/year. Subtracting the $100 billion that can be saved by cancelling other programs, that's an extra $300 billion/year, or about 15% of GDP in extra spending (Canada's GDP is ~$2 trillion). The Canadian federal government operating expenses are around $300 billion/year right now, the provinces sum to about $400 billion/year, cities are another $150 billion/year or so. That all adds up to $850 billion, or about 42% of GDP. So we're talking about increasing the overall size of Canadian government from 42% of GDP to 57% of GDP to pay for this program, barring any savings that might be achieved from reducing crime and health spending as a result of the program.

Personally, I'm really undecided about the guaranteed income thing. On one hand, I really like the idea of eliminating dozens of individual means-tested welfare-type programs. This would eliminate a ton of government waste and bureaucracy, put a greater proportion of program money in the hands of intended recipients rather than government bureaucrats, and eliminate many of the ways in which government gives out privilege to specific groups rather than all citizens equally. In addition, it would likely significantly reduce poverty, crime, and health issues. It is also a potential answer to dwindling employment as a result of automation and globalization. On the other hand, a new program costing 6% of GDP (closer to 10% of GDP in Canada) beyond current spending is absolutely huge and fundamentally alters the economic landscape, reduces tax-competitiveness relative to other countries, and probably impedes growth to some extent.

The high top tax rates were WWI and WWII policies (necessary to fund the huge war effort), which in each case were steadily lowered again after the wars ended. As for the US's highest growth being in the 50s and 60s... yes, but not because of the tax rates, rather it was because of its unique economic positioning after the war (Europe was left in ruins and rebuilding, the Soviet Union was mired in Stalinist repression, and the "economic miracles" in Japan and China hadn't happened yet). As really the lone industrialized country (along with Canada and Australia I guess) that was left undamaged by the war and embracing a market economy, the US was basically guaranteed phenomenal growth regardless of the details of tax policy, since there was really nowhere else in the world you could do business in the same way until decades later. The other thing to note is hardly anyone paid taxes at those rates. which can be seen since overall government revenues in the US have stayed remarkably constant at around 17-18% of GDP for the entire postwar period to the present day (see below). Paying for the guaranteed income program described above would increase the tax burden by about 6% of GDP, which is far outside the range the US has stayed within for over 70 years.

Stop with the content-free spam please. Yes, we get it, you're disgusted every time someone dares to disagree with you. Doesn't mean you have to keep proclaiming your disgust over and over.

A perpetually growing economy is not guaranteed. As long as everything is going well with the country that the government controls, one may be able to expect a long term average growth rate of a few %. But that doesn't preclude periods of economic contraction or stagnation, which can last decades. And yet these periods are the ones when it would be most helpful to borrow more to try to stimulate the economy. A government that is constantly in debt and relying on continuous growth to keep from drowning in it leaves itself no margin of safety should real world economic conditions turn out less rosy than optimistic forecasts. The US was able to stimulate its way out of the recession by spending obscene amounts of money, doubling its debt-to-GDP ratio from about 50% to about 100%. When the next recession hits, will it be able to double it to 200% to pull off the same trick again? Chances are not, because at debt being 200% of GDP and typical historical interest rates of 5%, 10% of GDP would go just to debt-servicing, and that's over half the government's total budget, and that level of debt corresponds to credit downgrades which lead to increasing interest rates.

How many governments in history have had "unlimited life"? Just because governments don't die of old age, doesn't mean they don't die from other causes. Governments have a statistical average life span of about 250 years, it is not perpetual, and is in fact only about 3-4 times longer than individuals.

I agree, a top combined tax rate of 60% is problematic, and that's the biggest issue with a program like this. 60% is right around the max you find in some of the most progressive/socialist northern European countries, so it's not necessarily impossible but probably a non-starter in Canada and the US which are far more on the entrepreneurial rather than re-distributive end of the cultural spectrum. As for incompetence... yes, there is that. But then at least if someone can't afford basic necessities we can rightfully look down on them and leave them to rot knowing they are getting $18k and wasting it, rather than just someone that just needs a helping hand up Also, $1500/month is enough to live on even in places like Vancouver. You don't need to rent a nice condo on the west end, you can rent a room in someone's house or basement for as low as $500, just check Craigslist, there are hundreds of postings in the 500-700/mo range in all of Canada's major cities. Or, live with a roommate/partner that also gets their $18k, and you get $36k between the two of you, plenty to rent a very reasonable apartment in any major city.

The guaranteed income goes to all adult citizens, regardless of what work income they may have. Tax rates are adjusted so that it's a slowly decreasing net benefit up to a certain income. Therefore there is no disincentive to work other than that which already exists with a progressive income tax structure. For example: Right now: 0-45k: 15% 45k-90k: 20.5% 90k-140k: 26% 140k-200k: 29% 200k+: 33% With guaranteed income and tax changes to pay for it: *18k handout to everyone 0-45k: 35% 45-90k: 38% 90k-140k: 40% 140k-200k: 40% 200k+: 40% Here are the results of someone that currently makes the following incomes, with and without the above changes (this is just looking at Federal tax brackets): Work Income ---- Current After Tax Income ---- New After Tax Income w/ Handout 0 -------------------------------- 0 ------------------------------------- 18k 20k -----------------------------17k ----------------------------------- 31k 40k -----------------------------34k ----------------------------------- 44k 60k -----------------------------50.1k -------------------------------- 56.5k 80k -----------------------------66k ----------------------------------- 68.9k 100k----------------------------81.4k -------------------------------- 81.1k 120k----------------------------96.2k -------------------------------- 93.1k 140k---------------------------- 111k -------------------------------- 105.2k So basically everyone up to about 100k gets a bump due to the tax changes and handout, while those above are impacted by the higher top tax bracket. And yes the top tax bracket is a full 7% higher than now, you do have to pay for the expensive new entitlement. The component of provincial budgets currently going to various welfare/transfer programs would also be redirected to this program to pay for it. Is the 7% higher top tax bracket, impacting people making over 100k, worth the benefit of essentially eliminating poverty? That's the real question to discuss, since appropriate changes in the tax structure maintain the monetary incentive to work.

This is all true and I agree with it but it doesn't really refute the idea that perhaps there should be a guaranteed income as discussed above. Anyone who has any job would still make more than the person only getting the guaranteed income, and those who have higher paying jobs would still be more highly rewarded than those who have less highly paying jobs. So the monetary incentive to work and to have better work would still remain.

The linked article mentions stats in the US. There, it calculates that paying $12k (equal to the US poverty line) to all US adults (21-65) would cost about $2 trillion. The current cost of all federal and state level welfare-related programs is $1 trillion. Cancel those and you have an extra cost of $1 trillion per year to fund the new entitlement. That's about 6% of GDP. So the US federal government would have to grow from ~20% of GDP to ~26% of GDP to fund this scheme, where all adults are paid $12k (in addition to whatever income they may have from other sources). Certainly, a large expenditure, but many Western countries have federal government spending considerably higher than 26% of GDP. I'm sure one could dig up all these numbers for Canada also and likely also come up with a result that means the federal government has to grow as a % of GDP but not to absurd levels. One could also argue that if everyone was provided with an income that put them above the poverty line, this may reduce crime and poor health, resulting in savings in policing, the justice system, and the health system. The amount of savings here is hard to predict but there would likely be some, potentially offsetting some of the cost. So the idea, though expensive, can't be ruled out as fiscally impossible. That said, whether it's a good idea or not can certainly be debated from many angles. For example, $12k is sufficient to live a reasonable lifestyle in cheaper rural areas, especially if you reside together with 1 or 2 other people that also make $12k each. How many people that currently work (whether minimum wage or otherwise) would decide that they'd rather just live on $12k per year in low cost of living areas and not bother working? Would this reduction in labor force participation reduce overall productivity of the nation and impede economic and technological progress, causing a cycle of stagnation? On the other hand, one might point out that the current array of means-tested programs provides its own disincentive to work harder or find higher paying jobs, since the more you earn, the fewer means-tested programs you qualify for, reducing the additional benefit of higher salaries. Or, one could argue that freed from the necessity to work minimum wage jobs, some people might instead pursue activities that may be more useful in the long run - such as dedicating more time to raise a child, or volunteering in the community, or pursuing a personal passion that may not pay anything but could still enrich society in some other way. One might also put forth the argument that increasing automation means there will simply be fewer and fewer low skilled jobs available, and eventually fewer and fewer jobs of any kind available, and that the expectation that everyone should be employed to provide for themselves might eventually not be realistic in practice, in which case some sort of guaranteed income may be a reasonable solution.

Don't worry, all that will be duly attributed to "rape culture" and "patriarchy" so that the blame can be placed everywhere besides where it actually belongs. In other news, I'm sure all the German women (and men) that advocated for millions of refugees to be brought in are very glad now that women's rights have been set back a century and they have to start from the beginning fighting to enshrine the idea that women have the right to wear what they want without risking being raped. Before long, many of these refugees will be citizens and will be sitting on juries, deciding that German women deserved to be raped because they didn't wear enough. Also, won't be long before Germany is free of Jews again, as violence against Jews is rapidly on the rise all across Europe as the Arab and Muslim populations, raised on Jew-hatred from birth, increase rapidly. Progressive Islamo-utopia, here we come.

I think what Newfoundlander and cannuck are talking about with their "guaranteed income" would be in addition to what you get from a job. So if you do nothing you get $20k, but if you work a minimum wage job, then you get the $20k income from the government + $20k from the job, for a total of $40k.

In my experience it's not really big pharma companies pushing to dose up kids on these drugs. Rather it's bad teachers and school systems that can't deal with kids that do anything but mutely sit in their seats in class trying to convince parents that their kids need these drugs. A coworker of mine has a 2nd grade kid that "acted up" twice in class and boom a week later, they are in the principal's office being recommended to put their kid on Ritalin, without even a qualified psychiatrist present. The lifestyle problems of many people in advanced countries these days are well known. The information on how to improve your lifestyle to help avoid both obesity and depression are also widely known. Nonetheless, many people fail to live a healthy lifestyle. For these people, drugs are available to alleviate some of the resulting symptoms of their poor lifestyle choices. Is that a bad thing? Many of these diseases and infections are already treatable. Most parasites certainly are. The problem isn't that the technology to address most of these conditions doesn't exist, but rather that there is no infrastructure, no institutional ability, no money, and in many cases no local will to deploy these solutions. In fact, the overwhelming majority of disease load in tropical developing countries could be solved simply by providing universal access to clean water, hygienic sanitation systems, and adequate nutrition, without any fancy medical technology. And it's not really the role of drug companies to provide these basic necessities of health, but the local governments and people.

You're likely correct. I wonder how long until America gets its first openly atheist president. I wouldn't hold my breath for this century.

You don't use your cell phone for non-work related matters? Or do you mean you turn your work cell off and your personal one on?

Nope, never noticed that. Poor people don't get cancer? Poor people don't get depression? Poor people don't get HIV? Which diseases were deliberately invented just to infect rich people so more money could be extracted from them? Actually my only real interest in the field of medical technology would be to make sure that it develops as quickly as possible so that I can live for a good few thousand years As for shareholders... yeah pretty much everyone with a retirement fund, as well as pretty much anyone who invests in index-tracking mutual funds or ETFs. So basically anyone who isn't an idiot. Far from all of them are wealthy.

I was merely pointing out that much of the cost to get drugs to market is imposed by governments, even if some/most of those costs are reasonably justifiable from the perspective of public safety (reality is proving that a drug is safe before it goes to market is certainly critical and the regulations are indeed intended to do that, but the way they are implemented and the inefficiency of dealing with the bureaucracy costs companies billions of dollars more than it should). Governments are also generally the largest buyers of the end products. Therefore they are the ones that pay the cost. In the end, whether those costs are in terms of up-front R&D money, or if the company pays for the R&D itself and then recovers the cost by selling the drugs at a higher price, it'll be the government and other drug purchasers that pay for it. No, I mean expertise as in all the thousands of highly trained employees with decades of experience that work at large pharmaceutical companies, as well as the institutional knowledge of how to do these things and billions of dollars worth of capital infrastructure. Corporations are global, government agencies are replicated in each country. Medical solutions to address particular problems only need to be developed once, or maybe 2 or 3 times so there's some competition, they don't need to be replicated in each country. A few major global corporations that can recover their costs in a global marketplace are going to have more resources to throw at solving medical problems than if every country had its own public agency duplicating the efforts of every other country. Furthermore, if a government agency was responsible for developing new drugs, you'd very quickly see its research become politically motivated. Would you want some crazy social conservative to come into power and decide that all medical research is bad since its against god's will and cancel all the funding? Not an impossibility in the US - where almost all new drug development happens currently. Meanwhile, companies are just out there to make a profit, meaning they'll be trying to address problems that the most people are affected by and are willing to pay to be solved, meaning the highest amount of research dollars goes to addressing the medical problems that affect the most people the most strongly, in general. Your emotional revulsion at having governments pay corporations to do things that it makes sense for corporations to do is noted.

The fact that at some point we'll produce less oil than presently, meaning that somewhere in between there must have been a peak, is self-evident and obvious. That is because regardless of where we look for oil, the total amount that exists on Earth is finite, and therefore its use can't grow forever. What is less clear is whether "peak oil" would be economically relevant at all. Consider, for example, our use of wood for heating houses. Clearly, we reached "peak wood" at some point, but not because we ran out of trees, but because we found other (much more effective) ways of heating houses. This is what will happen with oil and what I think TimG is arguing... at some point, some/most of our uses of oil will be replaced with other processes. Oil demand and production will decline, but plenty of oil will likely still be left in the ground. And all of this will happen as a result of technological progress and market forces, and will be influenced only slightly by environmental policies which can only tilt the table a little bit in favor of non-fossil fuels but can't alter economic and technological reality.

You'll notice I didn't suggest that. In many areas, large companies are usually better suited to conducting research and development of things that are actually gonna go to market than university labs are. For one, most work in university labs is done by grad students, which are there for 4-6 years and then graduate and go elsewhere. Meanwhile, developing a new drug and taking it to market takes much longer, and is a process that benefits from having personnel on hand that have long years of experience with the whole process. The resources and expertise of a corporation valued at many billions of dollars are impossible to replicate in a university lab setting.

One of the biggest costs associated with getting a drug to market is complying with regulations that the government imposes. Furthermore, in most advanced countries (except maybe the US), the government is the biggest customer for most pharmaceuticals. So basically what the companies are saying is that if their biggest customer wants them to develop something, they should pay for the development. This is the same way in which most industries work... if you go to a company and ask for a new product that doesn't exist to be developed, you pay for that development effort. For example, aerospace companies don't just randomly build new fighter jets and then hope someone buys them, rather, they find customers that have specific needs and build to those needs, and the customer pays for the development. In industries that market to individual consumers, companies will try to develop new products themselves to catch media hype and stay ahead of the competition. But this happens mostly just in direct-to-consumer industries. Healthcare doesn't fit that mold. The cost of developing new healthcare technologies will only grow ever larger over time, and it is the customers that will have to pay for these development efforts, and in most countries it is government that has taken on this role.

The future of cars is electric, and the electricity cost per distance driven is dirt cheap compared to gas. And not having people circling around looking for parking and freeing up parking lanes to be used as traffic lanes will compensate for the traffic to a large extent, as will the fact that most cities have a commute direction and an "anti-commute" direction in which there is much less traffic, and the cars going back will be adding to the anti-commute traffic not to the commute traffic. Anyway, just one of the many possible advantages of self-driving vehicles. Not all the potential advantages will necessarily pan out but some will.