13 требований
Oct. 17th, 2011 08:21 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
m_elleпо ссылке из комментов в дружественном журнале. Если бы не знать, что бОльшая (с хорошим запасом) часть этой толпы приходит просто по приколу - потусоваться под музыку, поесть халявной органической еды, и покурить травы - то, пожалуй, стоило бы уже подумать о разгоне этой движухи.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2011-10-18 04:08 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2011-10-18 05:38 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2011-10-18 06:05 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2011-10-18 06:09 am (UTC)Там дисклаймер замечательный наверху висит
Date: 2011-10-18 07:08 am (UTC)Re: Там дисклаймер замечательный наверху висит
Date: 2011-10-18 07:28 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2011-10-18 11:26 am (UTC)must be nice to find oneself in a much superior company than Friedrich Hayek, Milton Friedman, Charles Murray and other left-wing retards.
but wait, these commies (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jay_Hammond) during Nixon's administration have already started implementing it (http://www.pfd.state.ak.us/) in a certain hardcore blue state!
куды всё котится...
"They’ve tried this. It is called Greece. You should move there. Wait, Germany called. They’re tired of footing the bill. Strange… Germany is a lot like your parents in that respect."
тут дядя просто не в курсе. как раз в Грецию за этим переезжать смысла не было. зато в Германию... (http://lj.rossia.org/users/leise_stimme/9925.html)
no subject
Date: 2011-10-18 05:48 pm (UTC)Second, Alaskan dividend is very different from what these commies want:
Dividend comes from a privately managed fund and depends on market conditions and how well that fund is managed. It has never paid more than $3,300 annually, and some years it paid as little as $331 a year. It is paid to every resident, regardless of their other income.
What the commies want is guaranteed living wage, regardless of employment, and they want to raise the minimum wage to $20/hour. Remember that living wage is not the same as minimum wage. Minimum wage is legislated, while living wage is based on market cost for lowest possible standard of living. Typically, living wage is higher than minimum wage. This means that they want a GUARANTEED $20/hour or higher, regardless of employment. That's $41,600 a year. It does not mean that everyone gets it, it means that people who don't work, or earn less than living wage get free money from government, but someone working and earning at living wage level gets nothing extra. Anyone with a grade above F in econ 101 can figure out what kind of incentive this creates and why this is an incredibly dumb idea.
Third, as for your argument that Hayek, et al supported what these commies want, here's the actual quote from Hayek that seems to cause this impression:
"There is no reason why in a society which has reached the general level of wealth ours has, the first kind of security should not be guaranteed to all without endangering general freedom; that is: some minimum of food, shelter and clothing sufficient to preserve health." (The Road to Serfdom, Chapter 9).
How is that the same as demanding guaranteed $41K per year (or more) regardless of employment?
Murray did argue for guaranteed income. However, he did so as a complete alternative to all welfare: end all welfare that currently exists, and implement guaranteed income instead. That was his argument, if I recall correctly.
Friedman argued for Negative Income Tax, which is basically the same as Murray's proposal, and he also argued, just as Murray, that it should be a replacement for the entire current welfare system, not an addition to it. When NIT was actually proposed in Washington, as an addition to current system, Friedman was in opposition to it.
I am pretty sure, both Murray and Friedman would oppose these demands, because they do not seek to replace the current welfare system, but add to it, and if you look at the whole of the demands, they seek to add a lot more.
(Sorry, I am too lazy to dig for exact quotes Friedman and Murray, it just so happened that I had Hayek's book on my desk and re-read it recently, and knew exactly where his problem quote was.)
no subject
Date: 2011-10-18 05:51 pm (UTC)По-моему удовлетворение этих требований создаст полный коллапс мировой экономики. Но впрочем, согласен, не думаю, что всю эту фигню можно требовать всерьез не обожравшись каких-нибудь галлюциногенов или не обкурившись травы. Клоуны.
no subject
Date: 2011-10-18 07:27 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2011-10-25 02:19 pm (UTC)apf стал выплачивать дивиденды при том же самом губернаторе хаммонде.
It has never paid more than $3,300 annually
"вот видите, вы уже торгуетесь!"
думаю, те, кто выдвигает такие лозунги, готовы обсуждать компромисс и начать с сумм, меньших заявленной.
либо выплата денег тем, кто не хочет работать, есть анафема и о таком нельзя даже заикнуться в приличном обществе, либо нет. вы уж определитесь там.
мюррей, кажется, говорил о 10K$ в год; в германии речь о 1000 евро в месяц -- это, конечно, не 42K$, но уже гораздо ближе. в общем, возможны варианты.
It does not mean that everyone gets it, it means that people who don't work, or earn less than living wage get free money from government, but someone working and earning at living wage level gets nothing extra.
неубедительно, ни из чего это не следует.
кроме того, и у мюррея, и у фридмана тоже речь не о безусловном основном доходе в чистом виде, который бы выплачивался всем вне зависимости от других доходов.
here's the actual quote from Hayek that seems to cause this impression
не только (http://books.google.com/books?id=Kp8Uq8ve3EsC&pg=PA126&dq=%22I+have+always+said+that+I+am+in+favor+of+a+minimum+income+for+every+person+in+the+country.%22).
if you look at the whole of the demands, they seek to add a lot more.
тоже неубедительно, там нигде ничего про велфер не написано. в любом случае, я бы хотел ограничиться обсуждением конкретно этого пункта и процитированных комментарием выше строк.