Re:Moving Forward on Basic Income
by daemonk on Tuesday May 31, 2016 @01:51PM
(#11808459)
So is this basically "pure" communism? I guess historically, countries we called communistic didn't really adhere to its central idea; or they couldn't do so practically due to the accompanied political/economic instability following regime change.
[ Parent
| on HN ]
No. Communism requires abolition of private ownership. However, the hyperinflationary spiral resulting from BI could assist a transition to communism.
> However, the hyperinflationary spiral resulting from BI could assist a transition to communism.
Looks like you've identified the end game.
Re:Moving Forward on Basic Income
by misinformation on Tuesday May 31, 2016 @02:33PM
(#11808860)
What is your basis for that BI would result in hyperinflation? If that's what you mean.
BI isn't printing money so how would hyperinflation ensue?
Supposing the BI funding proposal doesn't include printing money (which is not at all clear), the price of inelastic goods (in particular housing) will rise to absorb the universal increase in income. There will then be calls to index BI to inflation, which politicians won't be able to resist, and the spiral will begin.
Not just tie it to inflation, but to location as well. After all, it wouldn't be fair for someone on BI to not be able to live in Manhattan or San Francisco.
> Not just tie it to inflation, but to location as well.
If it happens, I hope they do both, since the location adjustments will be even more rapid than the generic inflation adjustments, and it is possible that hyperinflation would just destroy the highest cost cities, rather than the entire US, before the program is scrapped.
Re:Moving Forward on Basic Income
by ConfuciusSay02 on Wednesday June 01, 2016 @12:58PM
(#11816048)
No, it's nothing at all like "pure" communism.
It seems like the political discource in the US has led to the loss of all meaning behind terms like communism.