Another socialist failure

  • You are viewing Orangepower as a Guest. To start new threads, reply to posts, or participate in polls or contests - you must register. Registration is free and easy. Click Here to register.
Jul 7, 2004
3,847
2,689
1,743
#1
Socialism/communism always fails and yet we have many in the Democrat party that somehow think it will work go figure.

Finland Thought Giving Away Money Would Get More People to Work — They Were Wrong
MADISON DIBBLE | AUG 1, 2018 | 10:08 AM




Martin Rose/Getty Images
Finland's government decided to try giving people money in hopes that it would encourage them to take a job.

via GIPHY
According to Bloomberg, only 77 percent of people in Finland are employed, causing Finland to fall behind its neighbors.
Finland decided to try a universal basic income.
Universal basic income is an economic strategy where the government distributes cash directly to people with welfare needs.
Often, it is proposed as an alternative to welfare programs and as a potential solution should automation replace low skilled workers. Many democratic socialists, including Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, support the initiative.

Doing some future-focused organizing today!​
Had the honor of sharing breakfast and thoughts with Mayor @MichaelDTubbs, who is piloting Universal Basic Income in Stockton.​
Then sat down with Walmart & Toys R Us workers to talk about the path forward for retail labor in the US.​



Finland offered a small test group of 2,000 citizens 560 euros (around $650) per month. According to Bloomberg, this amount is not enough to cover most basic needs and almost all of it would likely go to rent.
The government had hoped that his supplemental income would streamline their multi-part welfare system. They currently have welfare programs for child care and housing, among other programs for working-aged people.
They also hoped that the program would encourage people to take part-time or low-wage jobs to boost employment numbers because the supplemental income would balance out.
Obviously, this did not work and employment remained low. Many conservatives took to Twitter to run a victory lap after watching this socialist policy fail:
Socialism deteriorates the spirit of the individual, and incentivizes a lazy lifestyle where inactivity is glamorized and work is demonized​
Who would ever have imagined that if you pay people to do nothing, quite a few of them choose to do nothing! Shocking.​



The Bloomberg author, Leonid Bershidsky, argued that the program did not work because they did not give the people enough money, therefore it was not a basic income. Some conservatives weren't buying it.



Finland isn't alone in their failed attempt at boosting employment. According to Bloomberg, universal basic income programs in Alaska and Iran both failed to bolster employment numbers.
 
Jul 7, 2004
3,847
2,689
1,743
#6
Socialism/communism continues to seduce the mostly young educated and some older ideologues like Sanders. Hard to imagine how with all the failures we have witnessed the last 100 years or so how many people are so easily duped.
 

ksupoke

We don't need no, thot kuntrol
A/V Subscriber
Feb 16, 2011
11,975
16,335
743
dark sarcasm in the classroom
#7
Socialism/communism continues to seduce the mostly young educated and some older ideologues like Sanders. Hard to imagine how with all the failures we have witnessed the last 100 years or so how many people are so easily duped.
The politics of envy & scapegoating has always had a stronger pull than the politics of honesty.
 

CaliforniaCowboy

Federal Marshal
Oct 15, 2003
14,308
2,181
1,743
So Cal
#8
Socialism/communism continues to seduce the mostly young educated and some older ideologues like Sanders. Hard to imagine how with all the failures we have witnessed the last 100 years or so how many people are so easily duped.
because all they are shown is the glamour of that system, and they have not experienced any of the horrors.
 

CaliforniaCowboy

Federal Marshal
Oct 15, 2003
14,308
2,181
1,743
So Cal
#11
And also taught the horrors of what capitalism can lead to via the Great Depression. Never forget that capitalism has its stories of utter failure.
oh brother.... please put down the bong...

Listed below are five common myths about the Great Depression.

1. Free Market Capitalism Caused the Great Depression.
2. Herbert Hoover Was a Laissez-Faire President.
3. The Federal Reserve’s Tight Monetary Policy Caused the Great Depression.
4. FDR’s New Deal Ended the Great Depression.
5. World War II Ended the Great Depression.


Most of us probably learned that “unfettered” and “unregulated” capitalism in the 1920s led to the Great Depression. Some have similarly blamed capitalism for the current economic crisis. But just like today, there was not pure free market capitalism in the 1920s.

The Federal Reserve, the central bank of the United States, was created in 1913. Not only did the Federal Reserve fail to prevent the Great Depression but it was primarily responsible for its length and severity. The Federal Reserve controls the money supply and would never exist in a true free market economy.

As Murray Rothbard explains in America’s Great Depression, the Federal Reserve creates boom and bust cycles that destabilize the economy. The Federal Reserve created an unsustainable boom in the 1920s by lowering interest rates. Rothbard estimated that the money supply had increased by 61.8 percent between 1921 and 1929. The inevitable stock market crash was a symptom of the inflationary boom.

Economist Henry Hazlitt once wrote that “worse than the slump itself may be the public delusion that the slump has been caused, not by the previous inflation, but by the inherent defects of ‘capitalism.’” The blame for the Great Depression should be placed on the Federal Reserve, not free market capitalism.

The Federal Reserve’s expansionary monetary policy in the 1920’s caused the Great Depression, not the central bank’s “tight” monetary policy in the early 1930’s.

At Milton Friedman’s ninetieth birthday party in 2002, Ben Bernanke even said “I would like to say to Milton and Anna: Regarding the Great Depression. You’re right, we did it. We’re very sorry. But thanks to you, we won’t do it again.” He spoke too soon. The current economic situation may not be as severe as the Great Depression—though economists such as Peter Schiff say it could get as bad. But it's clear that the central bank was the main culprit in both financial crises. The Federal Reserve’s expansionary monetary policy in the 1920’s caused the Great Depression, not the central bank’s “tight” monetary policy in the early 1930’s.
 

ksupoke

We don't need no, thot kuntrol
A/V Subscriber
Feb 16, 2011
11,975
16,335
743
dark sarcasm in the classroom
#12
The greatest guilt today is that of people who accept collectivism by moral default; the people who seek protection from the necessity of taking a stand, by refusing to admit to themselves the [13] nature of that which they are accepting; the people who support plans specifically designed to achieve serfdom, but hide behind the empty assertion that they are lovers of freedom, with no concrete meaning attached to the word; the people who believe that the content of ideas need not be examined, that principles need not be defined, and that facts can be eliminated by keeping one’s eyes shut. They expect, when they find themselves in a world of bloody ruins and concentration camps, to escape moral responsibility by wailing: “But I didn’t mean this!”
Ayn Rand
 

steross

Bookface/Instagran legend
A/V Subscriber
Mar 31, 2004
24,559
30,916
1,743
oklahoma city
#13
Sorry to interrupt the victory lap for the downfall of this "socialist" idea, but you guys are off base. There is no data even released from this limited pilot and the claims of failure are fake news. And, if UBI is by definition socialist, then Hayek and Friedman were socialists.


"The assurance of a certain minimum income for everyone, or a sort of floor below which nobody need fall even when he is unable to provide for himself, appears not only to be wholly legitimate protection against a risk common to all, but a necessary part of the Great Society" - Friedrich Hayek

Sorry, I trust Hayek's thoughts on classical liberalism vs collectivism more than all of you.


From The Economist:

Not finnished
The lapsing of Finland’s universal basic income trial


Plenty of UBI trials are under way, with more to come

THE concept of a universal basic income (UBI), an unconditional cash payment to all citizens, has in recent years captured the imagination of a wide spectrum of people, from leftist activists to libertarian Silicon Valley techies. Proponents see a neat solution to poverty and the challenges of automation; detractors argue it would remove the incentive to work. Trials of UBI have been launched, or are about to be, in several countries. Most are publicly funded, although Y Combinator, a Silicon Valley startup accelerator, is starting a privately funded experiment in America.

Finland was one of the first movers. In January 2017 it began a trial for 2,000 people, each receiving €560 ($680) a month. That drew legions of foreign journalists and camera crews. This week, however, international media attention abruptly centred on the ending of the experiment in December 2018. Headlines suggested that it had been “scrapped” or had “failed”. The truth is more nuanced.

The trial was always due to finish after two years, although Kela, Finland’s national welfare body, which was responsible for the experiment, had hoped to expand it (it was denied funding in January). The scheme was also more limited than the hype suggested; it was not a truly universal benefit, because all the recipients were chosen from among the unemployed. And the trial is not ending because of failure. Indeed, Kela has refused to publish any results until it is finished, for privacy reasons and to avoid biasing outcomes. The government simply has other priorities. In particular, it has decided to adopt Danish-style active labour-market policies.

More important, the UBI trial was always as much about the principle of policy experimentation as it was about the outcome. As Heikki Hiilamo of Helsinki University points out, Finland has tested policies before, such as a “full employment” trial which sought to provide a salaried job for every unemployed person in the small town of Paltamo. And the country is still keen on novelty. After the UBI trial, the government is planning to test a universal credit system.

In its desire to try new policies on a small scale, Finland is no different from many other countries. A study in five Dutch municipalities, billed by some as a basic-income trial, is in fact mainly focused on testing various options for unemployment benefits, dividing participants into three groups. (To be fair, one of these was supposed to receive something much more like a UBI before changes imposed by the national government.)

For all the hype around UBI, surprisingly few are using the most rigorous research approach—a randomised control trial. Y Combinator’s plan in America, as well as an experiment in Kenya run by GiveDirectly, a non-profit organisation, are exceptions. In the Kenyan project, 300 villages were assigned to four groups. In one, villagers get a UBI for 12 years; in the second, for two; in the third, they get a lump sum; the fourth is a control group. But all these trials are just getting started, and none has released results yet.

Meanwhile, other basic-income trials are going ahead. On April 24th the provincial government of Ontario said that it had successfully finished the enrolment phase of its UBI study, which has more than 4,000 participants in four towns. And in Scotland, four local authorities, including Glasgow and Edinburgh, are busy hashing out pilot projects to implement a basic income. Whatever the results of Finland’s trial, a definitive answer on how UBI actually affects citizens’ long-term behaviour is still many years away.
 
Oct 7, 2008
1,126
268
1,713
#14
Sorry to interrupt the victory lap for the downfall of this "socialist" idea, but you guys are off base. There is no data even released from this limited pilot and the claims of failure are fake news. And, if UBI is by definition socialist, then Hayek and Friedman were socialists.


"The assurance of a certain minimum income for everyone, or a sort of floor below which nobody need fall even when he is unable to provide for himself, appears not only to be wholly legitimate protection against a risk common to all, but a necessary part of the Great Society" - Friedrich Hayek

Sorry, I trust Hayek's thoughts on classical liberalism vs collectivism more than all of you.


From The Economist:

Not finnished
The lapsing of Finland’s universal basic income trial


Plenty of UBI trials are under way, with more to come

THE concept of a universal basic income (UBI), an unconditional cash payment to all citizens, has in recent years captured the imagination of a wide spectrum of people, from leftist activists to libertarian Silicon Valley techies. Proponents see a neat solution to poverty and the challenges of automation; detractors argue it would remove the incentive to work. Trials of UBI have been launched, or are about to be, in several countries. Most are publicly funded, although Y Combinator, a Silicon Valley startup accelerator, is starting a privately funded experiment in America.

Finland was one of the first movers. In January 2017 it began a trial for 2,000 people, each receiving €560 ($680) a month. That drew legions of foreign journalists and camera crews. This week, however, international media attention abruptly centred on the ending of the experiment in December 2018. Headlines suggested that it had been “scrapped” or had “failed”. The truth is more nuanced.

The trial was always due to finish after two years, although Kela, Finland’s national welfare body, which was responsible for the experiment, had hoped to expand it (it was denied funding in January). The scheme was also more limited than the hype suggested; it was not a truly universal benefit, because all the recipients were chosen from among the unemployed. And the trial is not ending because of failure. Indeed, Kela has refused to publish any results until it is finished, for privacy reasons and to avoid biasing outcomes. The government simply has other priorities. In particular, it has decided to adopt Danish-style active labour-market policies.

More important, the UBI trial was always as much about the principle of policy experimentation as it was about the outcome. As Heikki Hiilamo of Helsinki University points out, Finland has tested policies before, such as a “full employment” trial which sought to provide a salaried job for every unemployed person in the small town of Paltamo. And the country is still keen on novelty. After the UBI trial, the government is planning to test a universal credit system.

In its desire to try new policies on a small scale, Finland is no different from many other countries. A study in five Dutch municipalities, billed by some as a basic-income trial, is in fact mainly focused on testing various options for unemployment benefits, dividing participants into three groups. (To be fair, one of these was supposed to receive something much more like a UBI before changes imposed by the national government.)

For all the hype around UBI, surprisingly few are using the most rigorous research approach—a randomised control trial. Y Combinator’s plan in America, as well as an experiment in Kenya run by GiveDirectly, a non-profit organisation, are exceptions. In the Kenyan project, 300 villages were assigned to four groups. In one, villagers get a UBI for 12 years; in the second, for two; in the third, they get a lump sum; the fourth is a control group. But all these trials are just getting started, and none has released results yet.

Meanwhile, other basic-income trials are going ahead. On April 24th the provincial government of Ontario said that it had successfully finished the enrolment phase of its UBI study, which has more than 4,000 participants in four towns. And in Scotland, four local authorities, including Glasgow and Edinburgh, are busy hashing out pilot projects to implement a basic income. Whatever the results of Finland’s trial, a definitive answer on how UBI actually affects citizens’ long-term behaviour is still many years away.
How dare you try to bring legitimate discussion into this thread.
 

RxCowboy

Has no Rx for his orange obsession.
A/V Subscriber
Nov 8, 2004
64,347
47,192
1,743
Wishing I was in Stillwater
#15
Whatever the results of Finland’s trial, a definitive answer on how UBI actually affects citizens’ long-term behaviour is still many years away.
One thing we can say about the Finnish experiment, if we give the money and don't take away other benefits, it removes incentives to work. Here in the states if we even think about modifying a social program we get ads throwing grandma off the cliff. Nothing is going to be taken away, ever. So, how do you think it's going to work here?
 

steross

Bookface/Instagran legend
A/V Subscriber
Mar 31, 2004
24,559
30,916
1,743
oklahoma city
#16
One thing we can say about the Finnish experiment, if we give the money and don't take away other benefits, it removes incentives to work. Here in the states if we even think about modifying a social program we get ads throwing grandma off the cliff. Nothing is going to be taken away, ever. So, how do you think it's going to work here?
How can we say that from the Finnish study if they have released no data regarding what happened? I agree with you it was not well set up and probably will have poor results. But as far as I know we haven’t seen any result at all other than knowing it stopped.
Actually, there is a Democrat running for 2020 right now on a UBI platform. And his plan initially gives the option for those receiving gov benefits to continue those or the UBI, but not both. So, I don’t think that what you said is the case for sure. If his campaign gained traction, I suppose the republicans would run “granny-off-the-cliff” style ads against him.
https://www.yang2020.com
 

RxCowboy

Has no Rx for his orange obsession.
A/V Subscriber
Nov 8, 2004
64,347
47,192
1,743
Wishing I was in Stillwater
#17
How can we say that from the Finnish study if they have released no data regarding what happened? I agree with you it was not well set up and probably will have poor results. But as far as I know we haven’t seen any result at all other than knowing it stopped.
Actually, there is a Democrat running for 2020 right now on a UBI platform. And his plan initially gives the option for those receiving gov benefits to continue those or the UBI, but not both. So, I don’t think that what you said is the case for sure. If his campaign gained traction, I suppose the republicans would run “granny-off-the-cliff” style ads against him.
https://www.yang2020.com
It would be the other way around. A campaign platform and implementation are two different things. When other Dems got ahold of it nothing would be stopped, and when Republicans, or anyone else (third party), try to stop other benefits then we get "granny off the cliff" ads.

The benefits are power. Who is really going to give up the power?
 

steross

Bookface/Instagran legend
A/V Subscriber
Mar 31, 2004
24,559
30,916
1,743
oklahoma city
#18
It would be the other way around. A campaign platform and implementation are two different things. When other Dems got ahold of it nothing would be stopped, and when Republicans, or anyone else (third party), try to stop other benefits then we get "granny off the cliff" ads.

The benefits are power. Who is really going to give up the power?
It isn’t economically feasible to run a huge welfare state and a UBI even by our very stretched concept of feasibility. I’m not quite as cynical as you. You could make a similar argument against Republicans running as “small government” conservatives. Small government removes their power so even when it is their campaign platform it never actually happens when they get power. So, there is no need to vote for them, either.
 

RxCowboy

Has no Rx for his orange obsession.
A/V Subscriber
Nov 8, 2004
64,347
47,192
1,743
Wishing I was in Stillwater
#19
It isn’t economically feasible to run a huge welfare state and a UBI even by our very stretched concept of feasibility. I’m not quite as cynical as you. You could make a similar argument against Republicans running as “small government” conservatives. Small government removes their power so even when it is their campaign platform it never actually happens when they get power. So, there is no need to vote for them, either.
And I would agree with you. The post-Reagan Republicans aren't fiscal conservatives. I have no party.
 

CocoCincinnati

Federal Marshal
Feb 7, 2007
15,408
23,286
1,743
Tulsa, OK
#20
Never forget that capitalism has its stories of utter failure.
The difference of course is that capitalism can recover from it's set backs, usually very quickly, but once socialism start it's death spiral, it is unrecoverable. We are seeing it play out right before our very eyes in Venezuela and some people still can't seem to grasp the problem.