the case for free money

Sep 2018
cleveland ohio
The Conservative Case for a Guaranteed Basic Income - The Atlantic automation is going to mean everyone wont have a job

Swiss backers of a minimum income spread out coins in Bern.DENIS BALIBOUSE/REUTERS
Last week, my colleague David Frum argued that conservative welfare reformers need to focus on simplification. As a young crop of conservative policymakers announce a range of proposals, there’s some movement in that direction. Florida Senator Marco Rubio’s plan would move most of America’s existing welfare funding into a single “flex-fund” to be disbursed to the states. Wisconsin Representative Paul Ryan, partly inspired by the “universal credit” reforms of Britain’s Conservative government, proposes allowing states to combine different forms of federal anti-poverty funding—food stamps, housing assistance, and more—into a single funding stream. In a recent speech about fighting poverty, Utah Senator Mike Lee told the Heritage Foundation, “There’s no reason the federal government should maintain 79 different means-tested programs.”
Get the latest issue now.
Subscribe and receive an entire year of The Atlantic’s illuminating reporting and expert analysis, starting today.

Meanwhile, the intellectual wing of reform conservatism likes these plans because they reduce government and offer citizens more control, at least in theory. Yuval Levin, one of the authors of the reform-conservatism manifesto Room to Grow, has praised Ryan’s plan, saying it would “give people more resources and authority and greater freedom to find new and more effective ways up from poverty.” Liberal wonks, on the other hand, have claimed it’s actually a paternalistic program at odds with the traditional Republican desire for less-intrusive government, since it relies on providers who make decisions for beneficiaries.

Sep 2019
The only reason we actually need a GIC (Government issued currency) is because the government and the Fed says so. We could just take money out of the equation and go on about our business without it.
  • Like
Reactions: Gdjjr
Sep 2019
No, we couldn't.
Yeah, we could- placing value on something doesn't equate to a need- society has made use of money, sometimes for the better, sometimes not so good- it's just a bargaining tool- trading is what it's called- money, especially when borrowed, adds a layer of unnecessary middle man to the equation- I say unnecessary because they are- the only skin they have in the game is supplying a currency- if "we" chose to exchange a good for a service, or vice versa why would a currency be necessary- if the trade wasn't agreed to (mutual consent) then it needn't take place betwenn the traders- adding a currency to it changes that dynamic at its core and puts a questionable value on service or goods- the value can be manipulated with the currency- with out right trade there is no manipulation only negotiation-
May 2018
Yeah- why not? Bartering has been arond a lot longer than money- money lets someone else determine your value- are you ok with that?
I think it would be a poor decision to go to a system abandoned thousands of years ago as "unpractical".
Dec 2018
New England
Yeah- why not? Bartering has been arond a lot longer than money- money lets someone else determine your value- are you ok with that?
You're confused. Whether it's the $20 bill in your pocket or the cow you're leading to market someone else is going to determine the value of either when you seek to trade.