[ALB]

Three members and a sympathisers were out for a couple of hours this afternoon in Hounslow mainly to distribute our EU referendum leaflet. Hard-going in this area where most of those passing by were not speaking English but either a language of the Indian sub-continent or of Eastern Europe but we gave out the same number if leafletts as usual. We did manage to engage in some conversations on socialism as well as the referendum. One of our opening gambits — that it was a vote to decide which Old Etonian should be Prime Minister — didn't work as we got the reply "I don't object to our leader being an Old Etonian. We need to be led by intelligent and educated people". Back to the Ragged Trousered Philanthropists !On the referendum most were in favour of Remain on the ground that "we are in and it's not worth the trouble or risk of coming out". Someone on the Islamic stand giving out free korans also expressed this view. Further down the street was a Leave stall run by UKIP including their candidate for the area in last year's general election when he over 6000 votes and 12.6%. The silent minority, then. No sign of Remain leafletters.Next and last weekend before the vote: Kingston.

[ALB]

I have now checked the facts with the French-language websites of those who proposed the Basic Income referendum, and1. The question on the ballot paper was simply are you or are you not in favour of the introductionn of an Unconditional Basic Income (without any figure being mentioned).2. The figure of 2500 Swiss francs was mentioned in their campaign literature and they say represents just slightly more than the poverty line in Switzerland.3. Their campaign literature said that, with the introduction of Basic Income, wages would be reduced by its amount.When I first read this third point I couldn't believe it but it's true, black on white. Here is what the French version says referring a graph:

Quote:

Les salaires vont en effet s’adapter pour devenir un complément du RBI. Par exemple pour un RBI de CHF. 2’500.-, une personne qui touche actuellement CHF. 8’000.- de son employeur ne touchera plus que quelques CHF. 5’500.- de salaire qui viendront s’additionner à son RBI.

For French-language readers who can't believe what they are reading, here's the source:http://rbi-oui.ch/laboratoire-sur-le-financement-du-revenu-de-base-inconditionnel/Here's a rough English translation of this killer quote:

Quote:

Wages are going to adapt themselves to become a complement to Basic Income. For example with a Basic Income of 2500 Swiss Francs, someone who at present gets 8000 Swiss francs from his employer will not get more than 5500 or so wages which will come to be added to his Basic Income.

So, anyone with a wage above the poverty line is not going to be better off: their income will be exactly the same, with instead of it all being paid by the employer, part will be paid by the State and part by the employer.If this is what those in the English-speaking world in favour of a Universal Unconditional Basic Income are proposing they have conceded our argument that it would lead to a massive downward pressure on wages. In fact it's part of the scheme. So we don't need to argue this anymore and we can simply laugh them out of court.

[ALB]

I agree, Stuart, there's a certain logic in voting "no change" in case change makes things worse and that this is one reason why up to now not many have opted for socialism. It's also why, if I wasn't a socialist, I'd have voted NO in the Scottish referendum and REMAIN in the EU one. Capitalism is bad enough as it is without the risk of things getting worse by some leap in the dark. If the Lexit people help UKIP win the referendum I don't know how they will be able to forgive themselves. But then they think worse is best as that means more discontent for them to try to exploit. Ordinary people don't. Which is why (sticking my neck out) I think REMAIN will win.

[ALB]

I'm not sure the discussion is taking into account how radical (and so unrealistic and unworkable) the Swiss proposal seems to have been. According to the BBC report above:

Quote:

The proposal had called for adults to be paid an unconditional monthly income, whether they worked or not.The supporters camp had suggested a monthly income of 2,500 Swiss francs (£1,755; $2,555) for adults and also SFr625 for each child.The amounts reflected the high cost of living in Switzerland.

That's 30,000 Swiss francs a yearly or £21060. As stated, the cost of living in Switzerland is higher (and the pound sterling is falling) but even £18,000 a year for everyone.The BBC report adds:

Quote:

It is not clear how the plan would have affected people on higher salaries.

Yes it is ! There would be a hugely powerful downward labour market pressure to reduce them by 30,000 SFr a year.I'm not sure how accurate the BBC report is (I've not checked) but 30,000 SFr a year for everyone as a right would really upset the labour market in Switzerland with unforeseen consequences. Maybe that was a factor in the massive NO vote. After all, what other reason could there be for rejecting a proposal to be given 30,000 SFr a year free?

[ALB]

Imposs1904 has found another promise on urban transport by another mayor:http://www.business-review.eu/news/bucharest-could-have-free-public-transport-says-newly-elected-mayor-108156At least it's better than giving people a "basic income" and then charging them to use public transport, though both reforms will have the same effect of exerting a downward pressure on wage levels.Khan was warned during the election that he was making a wild promise as the capitalist enterprise that is Transport for London has to at least balance its books and was never going to get the subsidy from central government that would be the only way to honour his promise.He made similarly wild promises on housebuilding. He'll betray them too, for the same reason. Capitalism puts profits before people and imposes this on politicians who might promise (and event want) the opposite.

[ALB]

Interesting, and perhaps revealing, speculation in the papers a couple of days ago. Because a Leave vote would be a vote simply to "leave" the EU and not do anything else (not even "regain control of our borders") and as Parliament has a large pro-EU majority, Parliament might decide to do just the minimum, i.e withdraw from the EU's political institution but remain in the single market on the same terms as Norway even if this means paying something to the EU and allowing the free movement of labour (as Norway does and has to).  If this happens, it really will all have been a fuss about nothing.This, incidentally, is why a referendum is not necessarily the best way to make a decision. There are rarely only two choices.

[ALB]

That's the wrong link. I think you must have meant this:http://socialiststandardmyspace.blogspot.co.uk/2016/06/dictatorship-of-proletariat-1979.html

[ALB]

Someone has drawn our attention to this week's podcast by the New Economics Foundation on "Fully Automated Luxury Communism".No "Von Mises was right" crap here. It also has some relevance to other threads here too, eg moneyfree, basic income.

[ALB]

KAZ wrote:

He's a clever old boy, ALB, ain't he? Ye ramble on for days (both of ye buggers are wrong incidentally) and he pokes in something to stop ye dead!

That wasn't me. It was Robbo. Anyway who are the buggers thou sayeth are wrong?

[ALB]

According to a short repoer on this in today's Times

Quote:

Critics branded it a "Marxist dream" that would cost the country about £17 billion a year.

The things they say.

[ALB]

I see that Swiss voters have overwhelmingly rejected this useless reform — useless because unnecessary in socialism and unworkable in capitalism (or, rather, would work in an unintended and not necessarily beneficial way). Even as reforms go, free services would be better:http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-36454060

[ALB]

Found that quote from Dawkins. It wasn't in a note to the first edition but in the text of the opening chapter and retained in later editions:

Quote:

The individual-selectionist would admit that groups do indeed die out, and that whether or not a group goes extinct may be influenced by the behaviour of the individuals in that group. He might even admit that if only the individuals in a group had the gift of foresight they could see that in the long run their own best interests lay in restraining their selfish greed, to prevent the destruction of the whole group. How many times must this have been said in recent years to the working people of Britain? (emphasis added)

It is in the endnotes to the 1989 edition that he explains:

Quote:

I must add that the occasional political asides in this chapter make uncomfortable rereading for me in 1989. 'How many times must this [the need to restrain selfish greed to prevent the destruction of the whole group] have been said in recent years to the working people of Britain?' (p. makes me sound like a Tory! In 1975, when it was written, a socialist government which I had helped to vote in was battling desperately against 23 per cent inflation, and was obviously concerned about high wage claims. My remark could have been taken from a speech by any Labour minister of the time. Now that Britain has a government of the new right, which has elevated meanness and selfishness to the status of ideology, my words seem to have acquired a kind of nastiness by association, which I regret. It is not that I take back what I said. Selfish short-sightedness still has the undesirable con­sequences that I mentioned. But nowadays, if one were seeking examples of selfish short-sightedness in Britain, one would not look first at the working class.(emphasis added)

[ALB]

Thanks.[Edit]Forgot to add that we know Lord Desai and he knows us as we debated him in January 1994 on "Which Way to End Poverty?" Can't remember if he was making the point at that time that we have to put up with capitalism (and poverty) till it is "fully developed".

[ALB]

You don't have to discuss with me but I thought you might have had the politeness to discuss with the others who have shown an interest in and commented on your ideas rather than dismissing them by saying haven't got the time.

[ALB]

Then why should we bother to discuss your idea? But it does mean that I don't need to finish ploughing through that interview to try and understand what you're trying to get at. I suspended my reading about a quarter through because up to then most of it came across as pretentious waffle and name dropping.

[Author]

Posts