We currently spend $1 trillion dollars a year on welfare (federal ~$700b, states $300b). There is evidence that it helped in the beginning (instituted in 1965 in the U.S.) for basic material costs but did not provide a long-term solution to the problem of poverty, as evidence of it's complete failure as exhibited in communities such as "the projects".
I have a question for you. Knowing that markets respond to incentives, and knowing that if everyone's income was raised by, say, $10k/year, how do you believe the market would respond? Would inflation continue to stay as it is right now? Or, seeing that everyone's income has elevated by $10k, the price of goods would increase?
There is already evidence that shows that something like the UBI would work for about 1-2 years before the market responds, corrects itself, and everything becomes more expensive.
That being said, there is a problem with the oligarchic class. I'm of the opinion that Crapitilism (corporate welfare) seems to enable this structure. I don't know how to solve that problem. Perhaps a separation between economy and state would go a long way of removing any incentive for a corporation to look for government handouts, or adding regulations which strangle smaller companies from being able to innovate.
Thank you for your response! I've never heard of Maslow's primary needs. Very cool!
Do you always define capitalism as corporate welfare?
Hi shayne, I'll field this one if you don't mind. Capitalism, as I understand it, is control of the means of production. This control wouldn't be a problem if there wasn't any coercion involved. The fact is though, the whole system is pretty well premised on every manner of coercion and unnecessary exploitation. In saying this I am in no way arguing for Marxism; an outdated failed philosophy, but capitalism, especially in its neoliberal version is unsustainable. The root of the problem, though, more than owning the means of production is the unsustainable economics of fiat currency. Fiat money has also been created via a pyramid scheme and is inherently 'anti-social'....I am arguing for socializing the creation of currency so everyone gets a base rate distributed to all at creation. This would take care of everyone's basic needs and the trick would be to educate humanity in ways which lead to as many as possible reaching their potential-- in healthy ways.....It's a complex idea which needs to overturn foundational assumptions about human nature more or less instantiated into humanity by cynical misanthropes...I am also not advocating against private property rights.
Hi peqnp, inflation is primarily associated with fiat currency. That is the issue which needs to be addressed first and foremost...I suggest, though, researching Steady State Economy....I certainly don't presume to know the answers...