I've wondered about Guaranteed Income and what it would do. Is it a more complex form of "corporate welfare"? It effectively underwrites our unjust minimum wages, cultivated unemployment, and pretty much every other thing that rich people need to stay rich. At the same time it would be a lot better than EI, CPP, GIS and OW/ODSP (or whatever other provinces have welfare/disability-wise).

You will still need 2 or 3 jobs.

There is no security, no benefit, and no Holiday Pay.

While their is merit to a different system, and Socialist have advocated for this and continue to

http://www.canadiansocialresearch.net/gai.htm

the labour market and the total collapse of the Labour Movement to address the changing workplace conditions, for those outside of Bargaining Unit concerns, IE what does a Teachers Union, or CUPE, know of the problems facing the private sector workforce.

There are many anti poverty groups out there, this is just one small piece of the pie.

It will also require a MEANS test.....

Guaranteed minimum income (GMI) is a proposed system of social welfare provision that guarantees that all citizens or families have an income sufficient to live on, provided they meet certain conditions. Eligibility is typically determined by citizenship, a means test and either availability for the labour market or a willingness to perform community services. The primary goal of a guaranteed minimum income is to combat poverty. If citizenship is the only requirement, the system turns into a basic income guarantee.

----------------------------

There are ways, laws which can be changed which will help the working poor. Which is a growing segment of Society.

Ontario is the only province with "Elect to Work" provisions denying people their rights to Holiday Pay.

The Federal Government is sitting on A CASH COW of EI payments, and hordes and wastes it on anything but EI.

OW, forces people to work for TEMP AGENCIES< pays the Agencies $17-$22 or more per hour, and the agency gives the worker minimum wage. Of this the Government gets to clawback the wage earned.

The only winner is the parasite in the middle.

While the other ideas, and some great ones are being put forth by 25 N 5, it is the little things that can be changed, that will help the people in need today.

Federal Government and Provincial Governments allow corporate raiding, which can put people out of work, while losing their Wages, Severance, Holiday Pay and Vacation Pay. CCAA is the way out, and those people who held good paying jobs, are looking at the reality of Warehouse Distribution of offshore consumer goods, and TEMP AGENCIES as their source of income.

quote:

---

Originally posted by huberman:
Why not maintain and improve EI and CPP as the petition suggests, while eliminating means-tested welfare? I think it will have a positive effect on wages as workers will be able to refuse degrading work, instead of the increasingly desperate situation that exists in which people feel pressured to do low-paid jobs, and need to work two and three of them to survive. This will have a positive effect on public health as well.

And we could increase min. wages at the same time.

---

Who would then do the degrading jobs? Would people be required to work to receive GAI?

That's exactly how welfare and disability function in Ontario and the means test requirement for this program sets up the same conditions. e.g. "You said that you didn't have a car and we have reason to believe that there was a car in your driveway for at least 20 days last month. How do you explain that?"

If anything this smells like a way for governments to spy on poor people more than they do. If people receive any kind of money the middle-class accepts and expects government to pry into every aspect of the money receiver's lives because there is a pre-determination that they are probably not worthy or cheating somehow.

quote:

---

Who would then do the degrading jobs? Would people be required to work to receive GAI?

---

quote:

---

I'd love to see a day when the boss cleans his own shit off the toilet.

---

Show me a national pharmacare plan and a national child care plan and a national elder care plan and then let's see what is affordable after that. It might be that all the public can afford after these other programs are preserved is a better social assistance level in a means-tested environment. Right now, I have absolutely no interest in directing cash transfers of money to those who do not need it when our essential national universal programs are either starving for money or on the shelf.

Consider the Conservatives Child care plan as an example-- you make the plan universal -- you spread the money so thin that it does squat for those who need it while providing better off people a small amount of money that is insignificant in terms of changing their lives while costing us the money that could be used in a more targetted way.

Making programs that are specific like health care, child care pharmacare etc. delivered universally makes sense because it provides the buying power and economies of scale while also giving the benefits to a "middle income range" who can fight to retain these programs.

But making income support programs universal strips the affordability from other programs and spreads the benefits so thinly as to negate the value of the program. For many it would simply function as a tax decrease.

If we have enough money after pharmacare, elder care and medical care and a proper means tested social assistance- then lets look at free public transit in the cities and free higher education conditional on student performance. You get a better bang collectively buying essential services than by returning small amounts of cash across an entire population. I can't imagine real socialists liking this except for those who think the national treasury is a bottomless pit and there are no other worthy alternatives.

I do not like means testing for most programs but social assistance is too big a program to do that and all the other things we need to do without a means test. It takes a lot of money to lift the poorest out of desperation-- multiplying the amount they need by the entire population of Canada is absurd even if you tax back an average of 30% of it. We would have to sacrifice so many other essential programs. Like I said this in practice would be closer to social credit than socialism.
Do the math: $8500 which is already given in social assistance if made universal (no benefit to the guy already getting $8500 and then assume taxed back at 30% across the entire population would cost roughly 208,000 Billion dollars-- Where exactly does that money come from?

[ 15 May 2008: Message edited by: Sean in Ottawa ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by huberman:
Everyone would get it. A more progressive tax structure could fund it and ensure that those with high incomes are paying it back, yet if they fall on hard times suddenly the GAI is always there for them without means-tested welfare (ie: many workers lose jobs suddenly, for trying to organize a union in the workplace for example, or for standing up to the bosses exploitation - others have relatives or dependants suddenly become ill and in need of significant care and personal attention).

---

"The Mincome Project had become Canada's largest scientifically-based social experiment (Hum & Simpson, 1991, 45)."

"The findings demonstrated that a guaranteed annual income would have little influence in terms of work disincentive. The subjects of the experiement would not stop working, or intend to work less, because of a guaranteed income (Hum & Simpson, 1991, 43)."

"...For instance, the current welfare system is costly and does not provide work incentives."

Here is some good reading to think over, and be reminded of each time this topic comes up.

quote:

---

GAI: HERE'S A SOLUTION, WHAT'S THE PROBLEM?

by Rosella Melanson

Quick. What radical social policy has had the support of the Liberal Party, the former Reform Party, the NDP, civil rights leader Martin Luther King, free-market economist Milton Friedman, the Canadian Council on Social Development, the Canadian Manufacturers Association, certain taxpayers and poverty groups, and even Richard Nixon when he was president?

The guaranteed annual income. No, I would not have guessed it either. If such a radical idea attracts such a motley crew, two thoughts come to the cynical mind: they can't all be talking about the same thing; and, why don't we have it yet?

Last week, the National Post (forever fighting to make Canada safe for investors) raised the red flag because it thought Prime Minister Chrétien was considering a guaranteed annual income to replace the myriad of other social welfare programs. Only in the National Post could you read the headline 'Ottawa confirms war on poverty' and know they mean it as a bad thing. Stealth socialism, they blared - before Chrétien denied any such move.

The question is, why isn't such a move being considered? I expect government to consider all options - particular since our efforts to reduce poverty were actually increasing it. The idea of a guaranteed income evidently has many supporters. After being seriously considered in the 1960's and 1970's, and having had a strong influence on our social programs - at least as they were before they were shredded in the 1990's - the guaranteed income is having a bit of a revival. Several countries are now considering a basic income. It is touted as a way to reduce poverty, cut administrative costs and provide flexibility in an economy of low wages, non-standard jobs and ongoing re-training where employment-based insurance, pensions and training programs are no longer efficient. But as a representative of the National Anti-Poverty Organization said, "If a proposed guaranteed annual income means shuffling and redealing the same lousy cards, then no thanks."

Talking about guaranteed annual income without defining it is said to be like discussing felines as pets when you mean a domestic cat and I mean a tiger. The classic definition of guaranteed annual income is an amount adequate for subsistence paid unconditionally and regularly to everyone, replacing most of the assistance programs and complex tax rules, and paid for through progressive income tax. But that is not what everyone has in mind.

Some envision a negative income tax, such as our child tax benefit. To others, it is a meagre amount given as a sop for dismantling all income security programs - which is the real goal - or a way to keep society peaceful as jobs disappear.....

---

See http://legalcheckpoint.blogspot.com/2007/11/social-policy-manitoba-mincome.html[/QUO TE]

Hi Huberman,

Yes, but welfare as it stands does not provide a live-able income - as we both know. I have no desire to quit my job due to the unliveable wage it provides and due to the intrusive means testing.

If there were a GAI that did not have means testing and provided a liveable wage I would most definitely quit my job. I could go to the beach, do yoga, read and tell the student loan people to bug off, etc. I am speaking for myself, so I assume that there would be a lot others like me. I know quite a few people here who choose EI over lower paying jobs or even slightly better paying jobs as it means having tons of free time, so why would people not choose GAI over getting up every day to go to work?

quote:

---

Originally posted by madmax:
(ie: many workers lose jobs suddenly, for trying to organize a union in the workplace).

Do you have experience in the above?

---

No. But these folks do. And I've heard stories about other people who lose their jobs for trumped up reasons because their boss caught wind of them talking to their coworkers about unions.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Michelle:

No. But these folks do. And I've heard stories about other people who lose their jobs for trumped up reasons because their boss caught wind of them talking to their coworkers about unions.

Call up any union and ask them why they keep their union drives a secret.

---

As I have stated I am not interested in a program that would suck dry all government resources and provide only a little for many who do not need it.

Another point is that social assistance as inadequate as it is at least accounts for children and in some provinces the cost of housing to some degree. For a GAI to work it would also have to do that.

However more modest programs better than what we have now are essential. And these programs have to deal with changing circumstances-- last years' income tax is not a good measure for all social security. Nor is appropriate to have long waiting lists to get on. Those who earned a lot last year but through layoff or illness are destitute today will need help when someone who earned the same amount and never lost their job would not need assistance. I do not object to the idea of uploading the cost of social assistance on the federal government- the provinces have enough of the costs and too little of the income. The new federal program will need to take account of local regional costs of living however. In conjunction with the other programs I propose as essential, the current social assistance amounts would be closer to what is required. However immediate increases are essential along with the supports to move off -- this includes as I mentioned free public transit.

It is the same argument right wingers and the doctors tried to use to stop Tommy Douglas' medicare plans. In the end such 'costs' are actually investments that provide the greatest return on investment through improved health, personal, social and family lives, reduced legal system costs etc.

quote:

---

Originally posted by huberman:

It is the same argument right wingers and the doctors tried to use to stop Tommy Douglas' medicare plans. In the end such 'costs' are actually investments that provide the greatest return on investment through improved health, personal, social and family lives, reduced legal system costs etc.

Would it have been better to 'save' the costs we put into health-care? Or is it a good idea to not make the necessary investments in the environment to avoid 'costs' (it will cost exponentially more to repair the damage the longer we wait)? The same applies to poverty.

---

No there is a difference. Healthcare is affordable and it is not a cash transfer that can be used for anything. All of funding goes to something essential. In the case of a GAI only a small amount of the money goes to helping lift people out of poverty and the rest goes to whichever luxuries wealthier people would like. That is a huge difference. You can't buy foreign made LCD TVs with medicare. With a GIA you can.

It will provide a counter argument against all other social programs-- "we gave you the cash- you work it out"

A Guaranteed Annual Income is by definition means tested (that is what a guarantee is- a check to see if you need it not automatic provision). A fairly means-tested GAI alongside the social programs I keep talking about is affordable and would be effective. A Universal cash outlay would either be so small for each person or so astronomical to the country that it would be counter-productive. There is a difference between giving a small amount of cash and delivering a real social program. Just look at all the arguments about why $1200 for childcare (or whatever they want to spend it on) from the Cons for everyone is crap and a real public child care program for those who need it is required. It is the programs and delivery that should be universal not the cash for people to spend as they like.

[ 15 May 2008: Message edited by: Sean in Ottawa ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by huberman:
On the issue of costs - how much does it cost in legal and court costs, social worker costs, crime, loss of health, social and family disintegration etc. because of poverty?

---

This is why we need specific programs to be universal to target this rather than a universal cash handout. There is a good reason why many progressives support means testing only for economic transfers and not for any other program. In part it is to make sure the other programs remain viable.

quote:

---

No. But these folks do. And I've heard stories about other people who lose their jobs for trumped up reasons because their boss caught wind of them talking to their coworkers about unions.

Call up any union and ask them why they keep their union drives a secret.

---

My question was to Huberman. I felt no sincerety in the scenario on his part.

Perhaps this requires better laws for these people "unjustly treated" if you so suggest, then to give people across the country money.

I just felt, having read the petition, that the comment was pandering to some union supporters or activists here.

Many Unionists already have supported GI in various proposals since the 60s as noted ealier.

[ 15 May 2008: Message edited by: madmax ]

quote:

---

Sean in Ottawa:
In the case of a GAI only a small amount of the money goes to helping lift people out of poverty and the rest goes to whichever luxuries wealthier people would like. That is a huge difference. You can't buy foreign made LCD TVs with medicare. With a GIA you can.

---

Millions of Canadians in poverty and millions of working poor struggling to stay above poverty and make ends meet will not go out and buy LCD TVs with the GAI. They will buy organic food instead of the chemically-laden processed cheap stuff for themselves and their kids, they will save for their children's education, they will pay off their debts instead of paying interest to banks and payday loan companies...

quote:

---

Originally posted by madmax:
My question was to Huberman. I felt no sincerety in the scenario on his part.

---

quote:

---

Well then, I guess you probably should have sent him an e-mail if you didn't want anyone else to answer. When you post on a discussion forum, everyone can answer.

---

The comments weren't meant to be private, but to publicly discussed. I expect everyone to answer. The more the merrier.

It is not the first time in these forums that you see people trying to sell an idea, while pandering to a group they may not support in the trenches, but want their support for an idea/issue that they think they can sell to those said individuals or groups.

Your answers provided the stage. What can happen.

Is GAI the answer to the scenario you brought forth?

Is this how you deal with a situation?

Such as... Well you were fired for noting Health and Safety concerns, but fear not, their is GAI.

I just think that is a stretch of the imagination. And it is not noted on the petition at that. It is a Made up scenario.

Thanks for Replying

quote:

---

Originally posted by huberman:

Millions of Canadians in poverty and millions of working poor struggling to stay above poverty and make ends meet will not go out and buy LCD TVs with the GAI. They will buy organic food instead of the chemically-laden processed cheap stuff for themselves and their kids, they will save for their children's education, they will pay off their debts instead of paying interest to banks and payday loan companies...

With a progressive tax structure high income people will be paying all of the GAI back in taxes (approximately $54,000 is one income level cited at which all of the GAI would be paid back), yet it is there if you suddenly find yourself without a job (fired unfairly, family health reasons...).

---

Well how much money would be spent on those earning between $30,000 and $54,000 that would not be taxed back?

That's the amount I want to see go to: childcare, pharmacare, medicare, education, public transit, the environment etc. If you tax all of it back at a lower rate then it is effectively means tested.

quote:

---

Millions of Canadians in poverty and millions of working poor struggling to stay above poverty and make ends meet will not go out and buy LCD TVs with the GAI. They will buy organic food instead of the chemically-laden processed cheap stuff

---

quote:

---

for themselves and their kids, they will save for their children's education, they will pay off their debts instead of paying interest to banks and payday loan companies...

---

quote:

---

With a progressive tax structure high income people will be paying all of the GAI back in taxes (approximately $54,000 is one income level cited at which all of the GAI would be paid back),

---

quote:

---

That's the amount I want to see go to: childcare,
pharmacare, medicare, education, public transit, the environment etc. If you tax all of it back at a lower rate then it is effectively means tested.

I am terrified of this program when we do not have universal childcare, eldercare and pharmacare because this program would be used agaisnt the others- but I said that already so...
I don't see us politically getting both these programs and a GAI.

---

It is very unlikely or possible to have both. What is currently in place would likely have to be adjusted, as their isn't enough money to do everything.

quote:

---

madmax:
their isn't enough money to do everything.

---

I suggest we stop all that nonsense and give every resident of Canada $3,300 tax-free to spend on health care. Or not.

After that, we'll go after education, public works, fire fighting, police and the military.

quote:

---

madmax, why do you say it is speculation that those in poverty would put the GAI to good use,

---

quote:

---

but you do not say the same when Sean in Ottawa says recipients will buy LCD TVs? What is your agenda?

---

Because he too is speculating and has defended the reasoning why he believes they will purchase consumer goods, thus arguing your hypothetical purchases with his.

.. Sean you are speculating...

quote:

---

BTW, yes I do have experience of the question you asked of me.

---

quote:

---

There is always enough money to continually cut tens of billions in corporate taxes and taxes to the wealthy. Why don't you calculate how much in tax breaks have been given to the wealthy, shareholders and corporations since Mulroney, and see if that could be better spent on the GAI and an improved health care system.

---

Corporate Tax cuts and Taxing the rich is a Socialist idea fronted by the CCF/NDP and not taken up by any other party(Marxists aside). If that is what is required for GAI, you better petition that Corporate Tax cuts and Tax Breaks to the wealthy be dropped.

Join with the NDP for such action. Social Services were cut in the 90s in favour of Tax Benefits to the advantaged and paying down the deficit. If GAI was in place, during the period you specified, it would have suffered the same cuts and reductions as any other social service of the era. The money would be reduced, like Welfare Was Cut in Ontario. EI cut Federally.

quote:

---

Why should poor people be obliged to justify how they'd spend their money? No-one else is.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Stephen Gordon:
Why should poor people be obliged to justify how they'd spend their money?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by unionist:

They shouldn't be given any money. With the exception of those unable to work, the poor should be given all the essentials of life for free including skills training and decent jobs.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Stephen Gordon:
How is that different than how we treat prisoners?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Stephen Gordon:
So your ideal is the gulag? Good to know.

---

Because submissiveness and obeisance are virtues in your ideal world, right?

There are four issues I am addressing: the first is that if we give people cash to spend as they like we do not get the same bang for the money we get invested in universal social programs like child care, health care etc. We get better value as a society in these programs. This is why I want to see these first. Brings me to point two:

There is unlikely to be political space to do both. If the GAI were implemented many would see that as a panacea for the need for other programs and it would leave the most vulnerable worse off. Also a single fat program is more likely to get cut causing massive harm to people-- a 20% cut in a GAI would be more devastating than a similar cut to only one of the other programs I mentionned.

The third is the cost -- the price tag on the GAI is simply not doable at this point even if it is taxed back- mostly. The idea that all would be taxed back by $54,000 illustrates the point. Most of our tax base is below $54,000 so to leave them with an after tax benefit would be hugely expensive. Other changes to the tax system would need to put in first to make that sustainable--

Lastly, there is a difference between handing over cash and publicly buying and delivering key essential services. Part of that comes form buying power but another part is efficiency. This is why it makes sense to make ALL programs that deliver services to people universal and means-test the cash transfers. The intent of a GAI is exactly that- this idea of making it universal is a poorly thought out add-on. A guarantee means a means test. Otherwise it is simply a national income which is unsustainable, inefficient and impractical. Further, a national income will not be spent by those who are better off on essentials. A national healthcare system, childcare system, public transportation subsidy etc. would.

As far as the justification of what people buy, that is not the point. It is not illegitimate for someone of low means to get an LCD TV. A low-income family could decide that this is the one purchase that would give the greatest family pleasure and choose it over a car or some other thing- or they may sacrifice to get it. A well off person could have both. This is not about the morality of purchases- government expenditure is not about that. this is about limited national monies that need to cover the priorities first. This is why I said bring in those national programs, secure them, index them, make them sustainable before something like this. I see the value in universality for all these other programs but cannot justify the cost of universality in a cash transfer. And there will always be other priorities-- direct more of the money to those who need it if you have it. If you don't have it direct it to national essential programs, several of which are underfunded or have never been implemented.

Of course we can look at many priorities- these are all political fights- but be realistic and make priorities of the most important ones. I do not have faith in the market like some, nor do I have faith that individuals can go out- with a little money in their hands and do well in a private market for those things I want national programs and standards for.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Sean in Ottawa:
There are four issues I am addressing: the first is that if we give people cash to spend as they like we do not get the same bang for the money we get invested in universal social programs like child care, health care etc. We get better value as a society in these programs.

---

No, we don't; in-kind benefits are less efficient than cash transfers. The basic economics is outlined here (eta: and especially here); a longer article is here.

eta²: I should add that I agree that a GAI should not be a substitute for universal health care; the justification for universal health insurance is a story of market failure, and a GAI wouldn't make that problem go away.

[ 15 May 2008: Message edited by: Stephen Gordon ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Stephen Gordon:

No, we don't; in-kind benefits are less efficient than cash transfers. The basic economics is outlined here (eta: and especially here); a longer article is here.

eta²: I should add that I agree that a GAI should not be a substitute for universal health care; the justification for universal health is a story of market failure, and a GAI wouldn't make that problem go away.

[ 15 May 2008: Message edited by: Stephen Gordon ]

---

That is not evidence of efficiency at all. In fact it is the reverse. You get a better bang if you aim directly for the purpose you are trying for.

The trouble with those societies is that the value they are measuring for efficiency is dollar income transfer. If you are tryign to transfer the most money-- doing it in cash is indeed the most efficient. But what if you are trying to have a healthy population and avoid people being ruined by illness? -- you are better giving medicare for that. If you are trying to balance the opportunities for families with children then you address childcare- you will do better that way than giving the money to everyone including those without children.
The efficiency you speak of only comes from boiling us down to the lowest common denominator and assuming that any transfer is good even if much of it does not go towards identified needs.

Also those studies do not consider reasonably the efficiencies of bulk buying like you can get with pharmacare- because the objective is not the greatest access of pharmaceuticals it is the greatest transfer of wealth. they also do not account for what happens when people make the wrong decisions or suffer misfortune. That is like saying it is better to have a little cash than insurance. So if you give everyone that little money they would get by eliminating the health program- they are better off -- that is until they get sick and have a need that cannot be covered because the money was spent on cash transfers instead of people that need healthcare.

quote:

---

Originally posted by jrootham:
Stephen are you really arguing a single payer health insurance system is less efficient than a competitive one?

---

No - that's why I just edited my post when I realised that I hadn't made that distinction.

Not quickly enough, it seems. I type too slowly.

[ 15 May 2008: Message edited by: Stephen Gordon ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by jrootham:
Stephen are you really arguing a single payer health insurance system is less efficient than a competitive one?

---

And of course it is-- if the purpose is accumulating or creating wealth. If the purpose is caring for those who need healthcare then it is remarkably less efficient.

quote:

---

Originally posted by jrootham:
Unionist if you are going to play silly buggers and be all Swiftian you have to expect someone will just do deadpan.

---

It's not possible to have a serious discussion with Stephen in his own domain, because he instantly resorts to intellectual elitism and arrogance.

Unfortunately, he refuses to discuss in any other domain.

So, what's left?

I've tried to tell him (for example) that the union movement fights to increase the minimum wage to limit exploitation by employers and set lower bounds for competition among workers. He keeps repeating (for years here) that raising the minimum wage is not a cure for poverty. I agree with him. But he keeps re-starting the same sorry chorus. Over and over and over again.

Same with GAI and various other subjects.

quote:

---

Originally posted by unionist:
It's not possible to have a serious discussion with Stephen in his own domain, because he instantly resorts to intellectual elitism and arrogance.

Unfortunately, he refuses to discuss in any other domain.

---

Um, hello? I'm right here?

quote:

---

Originally posted by Sean in Ottawa:
The trouble with those societies is that the value they are measuring for efficiency is dollar income transfer.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by jrootham:
Unionist if you are going to play silly buggers and be all Swiftian ...

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Stephen Gordon:

The criterion isn't money, it's (economic) welfare. The gain comes from being on a higher indifference curve, not having more money per se.

---

Then show where in those studies that the criterion is that. Looks like the criterion was the transfer of wealth to those with less. But having a little more wealth when you are poor is not the same as having economic security. I would say having a medical care system that will take care of you if you get ill is more economic security than having an extra $100 a month or so.

Explain indifference curve?

quote:

---

Originally posted by Sean in Ottawa:
But having a little more wealth when you are poor is not the same as having economic security.

---

Which is why the G in GAI stands for 'Guaranteed'.

quote:

---

Explain indifference curve?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Stephen Gordon:
eta²: I should add that I agree that a GAI should not be a substitute for universal health care; the justification for universal health insurance is a story of market failure, and a GAI wouldn't make that problem go away.

[ 15 May 2008: Message edited by: Stephen Gordon ]

---

But housing markets are also a story of failure for millions of people from Thatcher's Britain to Dubya's America. People are clearing out of newly constructed suburbs of Phoenix Arizona because bubble economy doesn't work for them.

How much are safe streets worth? How much is it worth to a homeless Toronto area man, educated as an archaeologist in Mexico, to be able to survive Canadian winter? Is consumer "utility" for housing or health care really comparable with satisfaction derived from buying a new sweater or clock-radio from Walmart?

quote:

---

Originally posted by Stephen Gordon:

Here's an introduction.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Sean in Ottawa:

Interesting I had heard of an indifference curve before with respect to market preference. I assumed this was not what you were referring to since it is not relevant to this discussion or even to the concept of efficiency.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by unionist:
I really resent these efforts to dumb down deep discussions so that mere mortals may participate.

---

Lay terms are important for me to be able to comprehend what he's talking about. I don't think Stephen is really talking in the same high brow technical jargon I've read on their economics blog with Stanford, Jackson, Gordon etc. I just resent that everything other than health care has a market solution. Sure it's possible to give money to poor people. But our appointed central bankers still target inflation at 2%. How does subsidizing market rents and mortgages fit with a more expensive money supply as of 1991?

Rabble's Duncan Cameron also made comments here on GAI: Proceed with caution

[ 16 May 2008: Message edited by: Fidel ]

quote:

---

Fidel:
Is consumer "utility" for housing or health care really comparable with satisfaction derived from buying a new sweater or clock-radio from Walmart? ...

Will it be nouveau chic to be environmentally responsible, to live as commoners in common housing and ride public transit and buy Canadian made when possible?

---

I definitely don't share your view of common housing, but appreciate the environmental, Walmart and made in Canada references. Many people support the GAI as an environmentally friendly policy (not every one needs two and three jobs and the car and car insurance to drive to all of them and have the required daycare to drive the kids to and pick them up from as well with the GAI). You also don't have to feel forced to move to Alberta and work in the Tar Sands, or for one of McGuinty's new nuclear plants with a GAI. You can say no to this eco-cidal work that only profits major corporations at the expense of everyone's health and dignity. You can demand that employers pay decently and treat you fairly without the threat of losing income security with the GAI.

[ 16 May 2008: Message edited by: huberman ]

[ 16 May 2008: Message edited by: Fidel ]

"Many people support the GAI as an environmentally friendly policy"

There is nothing in the GAI that would suggest an environmental provision. It is income. If you wish for their to be an environmental provision, then that needs to be on the petition.

This is a social policy. An Economic Policy.

You could say, that "environmentalists" support the GAI along with various Right wing and leftwing, Economic and Socialist thinktanks.

Next thing I will be reading is a tayloring of the platform of the Christian Heritage Party, suggesting giving $10,000 per year to families to raise their kids because it is environmentally friendly.

There are social negatives and positives, and I am not yet aware of one country or Province which has given GAI a shot. I would be interested in that and see the results.

One could even suggest that consumption could increase, demand for cheap consumer goods increase. Poor people shop closer to their block, and often spend more on food because of this. Perhaps the extra income would be spent on a CAB instead of walking.

Fact is we don't know what people will choose.

Maybe the home without a vehicle, (which just happens to be many people without the money), will choose to buy a car, auto insurance and license plates, will purchase a car for the convience that many others (probably yourself included) enjoy.

GAI

Guarranteed Automobile Investment.

At a time when the proposed solution of zero growth was being happily shot down by the economic bean counters, he interjected with what was for us a hopeful note. A "spirit of Dunkirk" might yet save the day.

The most optimistic scientific realists today, one-third of a century later, suggest that only a wartime economy can survive the challenge to civilization itself by complete mobilization of all human and natural resources. It worked out with democratic institutions intact two-thirds of a century back.

In that context, some variation of the GAI would be required. The concerns of the egalitarians could be met, as happened in the post-war period, and the market crowd,having finally to move the externalities into their suddenly enormously complex equations, would have to agree on their own irrelevance.