A first RBI (Unconditional Basic Income) paid in Switzerland!

Current Economy and Sustainable Development-compatible? GDP growth (at all costs), economic development, inflation ... How concillier the current economy with the environment and sustainable development.
User avatar
Obamot
Econologue expert
Econologue expert
posts: 28725
Registration: 22/08/09, 22:38
Location: regio genevesis
x 5538

Re: A first RBI (Unconditional Basic Income) paid in Switzerland!




by Obamot » 09/06/16, 21:56

We're talking about Switzerland, it's in the title of the thread (and without wanting to get too far, I know the situation of SMEs in this country better than you do). : Mrgreen:
When one has a loyal behavior one takes all the quotes and not partially to make them say what you want.
pedrodelavega wrote:
Obamot wrote:Obviously it would be good for an independent, not to engage in "unprofitable" activities, that's not what I meant

That is what you wrote there:
Obamot wrote:
pedrodelavega wrote:If the craftsman does not break even, his work does not increase his income. If his work is strenuous, what happens?

No, he does not need to reach it, since he automatically receives the part of the income that allows him to live.

If I take the classic scheme used in industry and crafts, that of 3 thirds: 1/3 purchase goods, 1/3 FG, 1/3 profit, we can estimate that the RBI could cover 1/3 (when we have a couple it would still be CHF 5 ...)

So if we reason apart from the absurd, he could work without billing his hours, just by selling the supplies!

[In Blue the passage that you had voluntarily extracted] Curiously it is no longer contradictory for someone who can read with his brain.

pedrodelavega wrote:And then:
Obamot wrote:If I take the classic pattern that prevails in the industry and trade, that of the third 3: 1 / 3 purchase goods, 1 / 3 FG, 1 / 3 benef, it is estimated that the RBI could cover 1 / 3 (When we have a couple it would still 5'000 CHF ....) [...] - currently the system is cantonal [...] through the increase in mortgage rates [...] The RBI will also be an effective support to the primary sector, fringe of the population of the agricultural sector [. ..] one can redefine the notion of "added value", just as one can understand that it does not take much to "create income", since the constraints of "profitability" are a little more subjective. , if we admit for example the seasonal work, where there is "the full boom" (as in agriculture) then we sell a lot, there are profits, then follows a whole period of less important income, where we pull the devil a little by the tail ... There are indeed lots of activities that are "momentarily" NOT profitable
I knew the 3-thirds rule on profits, not the one on turnover. 33% of turnover in profit is not bad. But if this 33% is only covered by the RBI, it may be better to stop working for nothing and enjoy your free time

Well if you don't know this rule, what allows you to comment on it and contradict it?
Indeed, it wouldn't work that way in France for all kinds of reasons. I would not like an SME domiciled in France! : Shock:
There are several freelancers in my family and I take stock / CPP every year and I know what I am talking about. You should settle here : Mrgreen:
I also said that it was cantonal and that it depended on the mortgage rate (therefore amount of rents ...)

If you take all of these parameters, you understand who I am talking to and why it becomes possible.
0 x
User avatar
Obamot
Econologue expert
Econologue expert
posts: 28725
Registration: 22/08/09, 22:38
Location: regio genevesis
x 5538

Re: A first RBI (Unconditional Basic Income) paid in Switzerland!




by Obamot » 09/06/16, 22:42

Wikipedia on the 'Break-even point' wrote:The break-even point corresponds to minimum activity level from which the activity of a business becomes profitable [...] Beyond this threshold, the company is deemed to enter the enviable profit zone. The value of this threshold can be expressed in volume produced, in turnover collected or in time periods (in years, for example).
Starting from there, in a craftsman or a farmer, we will observe (to a certain extent) that the RBI will allow the break-even point to "fluctuate". CQFD.
0 x
Ahmed
Econologue expert
Econologue expert
posts: 12298
Registration: 25/02/08, 18:54
Location: Burgundy
x 2963

Re: A first RBI (Unconditional Basic Income) paid in Switzerland!




by Ahmed » 10/06/16, 13:31

Even assuming that this UK allows the viability of marginal activities or allows more room for maneuver towards a more ethical approach *, it should not be forgotten that the whole system is based on the standard economic model which only works if it is indifferent to everything, other than the increase in abstract value and its harmful consequences. To pretend to subvert it to fill the UK amounts to being the dupe of this unfortunate trick.

* Which seems far from being demonstrated.
0 x
"Please don't believe what I'm telling you."
User avatar
Obamot
Econologue expert
Econologue expert
posts: 28725
Registration: 22/08/09, 22:38
Location: regio genevesis
x 5538

Re: A first RBI (Unconditional Basic Income) paid in Switzerland!




by Obamot » 10/06/16, 14:45

Certainly, but the question is also to know, in a society of advantage founded on "ethics"* As you formulated it - and therefore which would necessarily distance itself from the model allowing"the increase in abstract value"- if the RBI / RU, the right to housing, would exist? What if private property would be abolished?

I'm not asking for an answer right away [...] ( :) )




* (although I do not want to attribute this term to myself, nor are they meaningful in the speech to reinforce its content. Already because this word seems insufficient to me.)
0 x
Ahmed
Econologue expert
Econologue expert
posts: 12298
Registration: 25/02/08, 18:54
Location: Burgundy
x 2963

Re: A first RBI (Unconditional Basic Income) paid in Switzerland!




by Ahmed » 10/06/16, 16:56

I have already, it seems to me, already answered this question abundantly each time I am brought up to evoke the paradox of a social action which aims to repair the collateral damage of the economy and its financing which depends on the expansion of the latter ... This is one of the reasons that led me to reject the UK in the thread dedicated to it, remember.
Reducing the consequences by encouraging the causes seems very unproductive ... (Cf .: Montesquieu)
0 x
"Please don't believe what I'm telling you."
User avatar
Obamot
Econologue expert
Econologue expert
posts: 28725
Registration: 22/08/09, 22:38
Location: regio genevesis
x 5538

Re: A first RBI (Unconditional Basic Income) paid in Switzerland!




by Obamot » 10/06/16, 18:09

At least, it's clear! Finally except just "a detail": admitting, - if it can exist to the height of your wishes - that a relatively ideal society has seen the light of day (after the many disasters to come, let's admit forced forced humanity and to be overtaken by reason? :P ) how would you see the remuneration of fellow citizens for their work (or describe any other means of subsistence) with equitable distribution of the fruits of the work of a given group in said group and the prospects of savings and provident fund really mutualized without speculative aspect nor exclusion of "bad risks", insurance included or what would replace the current methods (therefore without seeing a priori idea of ​​"competitiveness" in the sense of the unrestrained race to profits and waste which underlies current general practices )?
0 x
Ahmed
Econologue expert
Econologue expert
posts: 12298
Registration: 25/02/08, 18:54
Location: Burgundy
x 2963

Re: A first RBI (Unconditional Basic Income) paid in Switzerland!




by Ahmed » 10/06/16, 21:06

There is currently a serious equivocation between two terms having the same origin: reason and rationality, which do not refer to the same thing at all; this means that our society can claim a hyper-rationality, while being perfectly unreasonable ... (this to echo your point: "... to be overtaken by reason?").
For the moment I stick to the first stage, which is the criticism of a systemic functioning, as long as the eyes have not opened up about the impossibility of a real change within this framework and moreover, from the inevitable collapse, nothing is possible, since it would be up to all people to determine, by trial and error, if I may say, what best corresponds to the kind of life it is possible to lead, without falling back into a perverse mechanism: economic, technical or any other purpose, the human is always only second in the business and will eventually become useless.
These lucidity conditions do not seem to be fulfilled, the disaster, otherwise avoidable, will cause great difficulty to start on a good basis.
It is not my responsibility to imagine a relatively "ideal" society (it will not be in any case!) In the place of all those who will have to work to constitute it: it would even be paradoxical to enjoin the autonomy! It is certain that a society which would not want to sink with its system would have to completely revise the way its members relate to each other and that the most common current concepts would be completely obsolete.
0 x
"Please don't believe what I'm telling you."
Ahmed
Econologue expert
Econologue expert
posts: 12298
Registration: 25/02/08, 18:54
Location: Burgundy
x 2963

Re: A first RBI (Unconditional Basic Income) paid in Switzerland!




by Ahmed » 17/06/16, 20:59

Un article interesting to Jean-Marie Harribey about the UK. He recalls some essential notions. Although I disagree on a number of points, I think that his point of view deserves to be studied and I agree with him on the rejection of the UK.
0 x
"Please don't believe what I'm telling you."
User avatar
Obamot
Econologue expert
Econologue expert
posts: 28725
Registration: 22/08/09, 22:38
Location: regio genevesis
x 5538

Re: A first RBI (Unconditional Basic Income) paid in Switzerland!




by Obamot » 17/06/16, 22:53

Good evening Ahmed,

I therefore allow myself to repeat a few points from the text of your (long) link (and I answer it partially so as not to be scolded by a long post, or even receive reproaches for using the spoilers, communication becomes really very difficult here):

1) The basic income does not want to end work since it is integrated in the salary! 2) Income is only disconnected when there is no "work situation", which is exactly the case with unemployment. 3) So the UK will never be created ex nihilo on any basis. Besides, as long as there is no model of application, we simply cannot not claim it, so a good part of this text is a mental projection without foundation, as long as it is not based on anything. But okay, let's accept the postulate of the author.

4) There is no question of excluding work from its role of "social recognition"(and it is very restrictive to say only that, there is also the work as" construction of the individuals ", as a means of autonomy, etc, etc) but it is rather a question of integrating and to socially recognize people who are currently excluded from this logic without being “at fault.” The current system is “pathogenic” in the sense of a pathos born from the deficiencies of the system and not the other way around. ) For deregulation, it would be exactly the opposite, since the UK would regulate (by "regularizing")! 5) The community would not support more than it currently supports, 6% of basic income will be integrated into the wages! This will be the responsibility of employers for the most part. I note the idea of ​​exempting employers from paying decent wages, but it does not hold water for the above reasons.

7) Currently "activities" (see work) is in no way politically validated, precisely. What is validated is sort of discrimination through work. They take different forms that we all know. It is only unpaid or poorly paid work that one might be concerned about the employer paying a living wage. But in reality it would be quite the opposite, since the collaborators would not be obliged to accept a job on indecent conditions, since they would already have an income ...! It would therefore be up to employers to be more attractive by offering work on terms that would be more attractive on the labor market. It is therefore quite the opposite that would occur. 8} The only point where we can agree a priori, it would be the fear of letting the mechanisms run the UK and not the activity as such, but honestly I believe that this risk is minimal because no actor would not like to go down this road. Since this would already mean - assuming that the UK has passed the ramp - that the actors would be won over to the idea that "people get paid to do nothing», Whereas in reality this idea is absurd and it will be on the contrary an extraordinary stimulant of human activity, in particular by relieving guilt those who do not have a job for the moment (or any other circumstance that would prevent them.) 9) The transformation in value will take multiple forms which currently are precisely not valued and we will quickly realize that there are many human activities, which are work, and today no longer / not considered as such. 10) Basically, we are already in the trend of a "uberization" of society and the opposite is already happening, the degradation of wages which are already indecent! Once again, it is not the national bank that pays salaries, social equalization and already paid by equalization by the product of income linked to work and that will not change.

The UK is not a "right", it is conditional discharge income as a result of a retrocession of the universal dividend (this is how it should be understood). Like all income subject to conditions since it will (it) be necessary to be eligible to receive it. We are in a society where the engine is the constraint and it is not about to change. The UK will not (and cannot) change this. The "social transfer" will be purely accounting (and not ideological). As for money creation, for an economist to tell us:

Jean-Marie Harribey wrote:The proposal is certainly more generous than what the banking system that floods the financial markets with liquidity does, but it ignores how the currency is created

Without wanting to disrespect this gentleman, it is worthy of a big horn. This person keeps talking about work, but has he ever rolled up his sleeves in an industry?

Jean-Marie Harribey wrote:Does this mean that we can do nothing against the degradation caused by capitalism? We can do a lot, provided we do not give up full employment in the context of a new quality production model and continuous RTT.

This contradicts the first part of his speech which is hardly compatible with RTT on the one hand and whose paradigm is very complementary to the UK. It's a bit like the snake biting its tail.

I stop at the percentages he uses in his demonstration. I have already said that less than 10% of jobs provide food for the rest of the planet, which means that we have a BIG parasitic sector! So there would be room if we wanted to change something, but it is clear that we do not want to change anything .... (the rest that follows on the OECD is strong coffee, I prefer not comment). I stop there, I have reached my quota : Cheesy:
0 x
Ahmed
Econologue expert
Econologue expert
posts: 12298
Registration: 25/02/08, 18:54
Location: Burgundy
x 2963

Re: A first RBI (Unconditional Basic Income) paid in Switzerland!




by Ahmed » 18/06/16, 10:52

Thank you for taking the trouble to read the entire content of the link and to respond to it in detail. I am not going to defend the author's theses, but only try to answer your objections.
On your first paragraph, it is clear that the UK is disconnected from work, since it is distributed independently of this criterion. What it means Harry when he speaks of creation ex nihilo, it is because the "right to draw" that constitutes the UK does not come from an initial creation of wealth. This is a delicate point in his vision of things: if I came across this text, it is because I was interested in his differences with me on the question of the creation of abstract value by the service sector. ; we start from the same observations and come to a very different conclusion. For this, it is based on texts by Marx, for my part, I stick to the most explicit and clear Marxian quote: the work of the sweeper in a factory does not directly participate in the creation of the commodity, so his salary can only represent one of the "incidental costs" of production which are taken from profit ...

On the second. Basing a society on work, a form of activity linked to a particular historical period, while this society tends to eliminate it through its metabolism establishes the contradiction enough that it is not useful to persevere or adopt an illogical bypass strategy. Considered from a dialectical point of view (do not be afraid of this word!), Work exists only in relation to money and its accumulation, the commodity and the destruction of the conditions necessary for life which result: only a questioning of the whole could stop the process, not a partial reform that would better accommodate it.
"Social recognition", which is indeed very important, could (if not, it's serious!) Emancipate itself from the form of work and rest on other, less destructive bases ...

On the third. Work constitutes, as you write it, the possibility of powerful discriminations and the UK would not function as you wish it if it brought a certain financial independence, however, as I already had the opportunity to write it , a universal attribution ex nihilo would not change an iota the relations between poor and rich: only an absolute monetary increase would be observed and, in the absence of the corresponding material goods, a rebalancing by the prices coming to cancel this gain.
If you want (and this is to your credit!) To "exonerate people", this can only be done by removing the alienating concepts which are the cause of this feeling and not by "adding epicycles", as astute as they are, since they can only perpetuate conflictualities.

On your quote fromHarry about monetary creation, I told you, I do not share his point of view: he is right in the sense that creation ex nihilo not backed by real goods is nonsense, but he does not see that nonsense is part of the problem ...

Your second quote shows his preference for a distribution of employment so that all can work, rather than a dichotomy between "idlers" and, as is the case of employees under increasing pressure: there is no no contradiction. Of course, this is a short-term vision and does not take into account the evolution of the economy; moreover, the abstraction of his words means that the work is rehabilitated insidiously, because it never calls into question the content of this work, and it is this point which is decisive.
0 x
"Please don't believe what I'm telling you."

 


  • Similar topics
    Replies
    views
    Last message

Back to "Economy and finance, sustainability, growth, GDP, ecological tax systems"

Who is online ?

Users browsing this forum : No registered users and 165 guests