Quote from: grondilu on September 19, 2012, 07:55:19 AM

Quote from: Hunterbunter on September 19, 2012, 07:41:57 AM

Yes, it would make everything else more expensive. I think anyone who has contempt for the capitalist system is confusing politics with economics, tbh. As for need, by definition everyone needs it, since it is to cover items most certainly used by every human being (food, water, shelter, clothing, healthcare, etc). I guess you must mean "need" as in "can't afford because I take more than I give",

No, I didn't mean that. I mean that if a guy can earn his life on his own already, he doesn't need your help or your money to afford the things you're talking about. That's what I meant. A man who is not poor does not need the basic income you're promoting.

But maybe I had your proposal confused with an other in my country. You want to give this money to everyone, including people who actually already have a job and no financial difficulties, don't you?

I'm not the OP, the OP was from Germany, I'm also not from Germany, but I believe that's what the OP was aiming for, yes. I don't really see the difference between what you said and what I said, but ok, "doesn't need help with obtaining". That doesn't remove the fact that he still "needs" it to live, in the other context of need.

Firstly, I very much doubt that person would say no. There might be a few with principles so lofty as that to be the case, but not many.

Secondly, need isn't the issue. To use a metaphor, how important is not needing help to climb stairs if you live in a stairless society? This proposal is about having that stairless society, for things everyone knows the society can easily and sustainably provide.

Those with a job will still fulfill whatever desires their hearts can imagine, including investing in capital and shares and have a life beyond subsistence in retirement, and they will still be far better off than those who only rely on the basic income.

Quote from: myrkul on September 19, 2012, 08:06:50 AM

The farmer typically doesn't give a shit who eats his food. All he cares about is that someone buys it. Thus, he seeks the money for the food, and uses that money to buy services and (here's my next point) other consumer goods. Food is not the only consumer good out there, it's just one of the few that everyone needs. He's also not the only farmer, nor does he supply the only type of food.

But let's assume that there is one farmer supplying all the food to everybody. He has enough food for all 100 million people. The people all have enough money to buy the food. They do. Now he has a great deal of money, but, say, only enough food to feed himself. What now? Well, now, he takes that money and buys a TV, a new couch, some booze (likely made from his grain), some fertilizer, new farm equipment, watches movies, gets a blowjob, etc, until he's out of money. By that time, the crops are in, and he has food again, and no money. The people have eaten all their food, and by virtue of providing services and other consumer goods to the farmer (and each other), the people have money. The cycle starts again.

Yes, in the first paragraph you're describing how things currently are, not where they are heading. I'm talking about the assumption you display in the second paragraph that companies are allowed to grow (as they naturally will) to own as much as possible, such that they control the entire food supply of a nation. These companies do not necessarily have to be public companies. So one arable land owner produces the food for 100 million people, and all of it's vested shareholders spend every penny they make as much as possible, and only 50 million people are found to be useful to them.

Since I made those remarks, I've realized it's off topic since its about "necessity control" and not really relevant to this discussion. One way or another that food must be accessible for a flat basic income be calculable.