以下是引用toroam在2008-11-17 18:09:00的发言：
发钱问题上，小学时候《小白兔和小灰兔》的课文就说过了！
你是要白菜还是菜种子——不要说现在不发钱就会饿死的理由哦
授人以渔？授人以鱼？
资本是最好的渔。把本来属于全国人民的公有资本，归还给人民，就是授渔。
把本来属于人民的印钞权归还给人民，就是授渔予民。
近年，有个美国人写书说在未来20年，机器人将取代一半的就业岗位。那时，想通过上班的“渔”来谋生，估计很难。因此，他主张按人发钱，每人每年25000美元。
Question 6 - Why do you believe that a $25,000 per year stipend for every citizen is the solution to the problem?
A $25,000 stipend will give people some level economic freedom for the first time in human history. With robots doing all the work, we finally have the opportunity to do that. A $25,000 stipend is the only equitable way to distribute the benefits of the robotic revolution to every citizen.
Question 7 - Won't your proposals cause inflation?
Think about President Bush's tax rebates. The government sends out tax rebate checks in order to stimulate and grow the economy. A $25,000 stipend is simply an extension of the tax rebate concept. Consumers will spend the money, and the economy will grow.
Right now, the federal government takes in over $2 trillion in taxes and spends it in a variety of ways. That does not cause inflation. The Robotic Freedom proposal simply takes money and distributes it directly to citizens rather than politicians. Citizens spend the money in a variety of ways. In the process each citizen achieves economic freedom.
Or look at the Social Security system. It is paying a stipend to tens of millions of people, and the number of people is increasing. Yet inflation is low.
Question 7a - OK, maybe it won't cause inflation. But there is no way to give everyone $25,000 per year. The GDP is only $10 trillion.
It is not the case that we would start on Day 1 paying $25,000 per year to every citizen. It will phase in gradually, over the course of one to two decades. In the process, the economy will grow.
Imagine that we create the central account in 2004 and choose several different techniques to generate $150 billion in the account. $150 billion really is not that much money. For example, the total cost of the war in Iraq and reconstruction in 2003 might hit that number, and we spent that money in Iraq without much hesitation. The federal deficit in 2003 has ballooned to more than $500 billion, again without much hesitation.
$150 billion works out to $500 for every man, woman and child in the United States. We send a check for $500 to everyone, and they spend the money. The economy grows.
In 2005, we choose several more techniques to generate $300 billion in the account. That works out to $1,000 for every man, woman and child in the United States. We send a check for $1,000 to everyone, and they spend the money. The economy grows again. And so on. Soon the GDP is $20 trillion instead of $10 trillion.
Note that there is a multiplier. When consumers spend $300 billion, it ricochets through the economy as businesses spend money with other businesses, pay employees, etc. $300 billion in consumer spending increases the GDP by much more than $300 billion.
Note also that the federal government currently collects and spends more than $2 trillion. That works out to approximately $7,000 per man, woman and child in the U.S., or $20,000 per U.S. household. It is very easy to imagine a system that pays U.S. citizens $25,000 per year.
Question 7b - Is $25,000 enough? Why not more?
$25,000 is the initial goal. As the economy grows, so should the stipend.
Question 8 - Why can't you see that robots will bring dramatically lower prices? Everyone will be able to buy more stuff at lower prices.
Robots will increase productivity and help to reduce prices. However, current trends clearly show that a good part of the savings will concentrate in wealthy shareholders rather than being reflected in lower prices. In addition, lower prices are meaningless if you are unemployed. If you have $0, the fact that a loaf of bread costs 25 cents less is meaningless.
Instead of letting prices fall precipitously as robots create productivity gains, or instead of letting most of the money from productivity improvements flow inexorably to the wealthy, we can channel the productivity improvements into creating the $25,000 stipend. In that way every citizen benefits from the robotic revolution.
Question 9 - Won't a $25,000 per Year Stipend Create a Nation of Alcoholics?
Amazingly, this is a common question asked by readers. There is a perverse fear that, if we give each citizen of the United States a stipend of $25,000 per year, and give each citizen the freedom to use that money in any way he or she chooses, that somehow we will create a nation of lazy alcoholics. For example, take this reader comment:
The majority of the people will (given the chance) sit on their duffs eating junk food and rotting their brains with TV.
Or this one:
given the chance most people will do nothing, they will laze around and be blights on society.
I could go on and on -- This is a common theme.
I have no idea where this fear comes from. Let me give you several quick examples to demonstrate that it is completely unfounded:
- My wife is a stay-at-home mom. She has a masters degree in operations research and used to have a high-paying job as an engineer, but now she takes care of the kids. I support her completely. She has not become an alcoholic. Neither have millions of other stay-at-home moms.
- Her parents are retired. They live off of Social Security and a modest government pension. They come to visit the grandkids, take lots of trips together and garden. They are having the time of their lives. Millions and millions of elderly citizens are living off of Social Security -- a stipend -- without any ill effects.
- I have rich friends who are independently wealthy. They don't ever have to work again. They volunteer with charitable organizations. They start new businesses. They take long vacations with their families. None of them have become alcoholics.
- I know and have known a number of students on full scholarships. None of them have become alcoholics.
- Similarly, millions of GIs since WWII have gone through college using a government stipend (the GI bill) to pay for their educations. Most have benefited tremendously from the opportunity.
- Military pilots and astronauts are given, for free, millions of dollars in training. They do not become alcoholics.
And so on.
Let me make the question more personal. If you had a stipend of $25,000 per year, what would you do? Would you become an alcoholic blight on society? Chances are that you would not.
Instead, there are a million things you would likely do if you had the freedom provided by a $25,000 per year stipend. If you have children or grandchildren, you might spend more time with them (you or your spouse might quit work to be home with the kids). If you have always wanted to start your own small business or go back to college, you would do that. If you have been wanting to write your novel, start a new career or research an invention, you would do that. You would use the freedom provided by a $25,000 stipend to make your life better. That is why we should enact the $25,000 per year stipend.
Question 9a - [a follow-on to Question 9] Yes, stay-at-home moms and retirees are not alcoholic parasites, but they are exceptions. They also are not productive members of the economy. Society will collapse if we do what you are talking about.
The people mentioned in Question 9 all participate in the economy in a fundamental way -- they spend money. People who have started businesses sell them products. Without consumers to spend money, we have no economy. Stay-at-home moms and retired people play an incredibly important role in the economy.
Where does money come from in the economy? It comes from businesses that give their employees paychecks. Where do businesses get the money for the paychecks? It comes from consumers who buy products. Where do the consumers get the money? From paychecks. Where do the paychecks come from? Consumers. Where... The economy is one big cycle. Unless consumers have money to spend, the cycle stops.
Whether we give them a stipend or not, businessmen and businesswoman will always want to create businesses so they can make more money. Whether we give them a stipend or not, creative people will want to create. Whether we give them a stipend or not, inventors will want to invent. And so on. With the stipend in place, the businesspeople, creative people and inventors have a consistent pool of consumers who will buy their products.
Will some people become alcoholics? Sure. They become alcoholics now, without a stipend. The stipend won't change that. If we give them enough money to live decent, dignified lives, we may very well have fewer alcoholics.
Question 10 - Why not let capitalism run itself? We should eliminate the minimum wage, eliminate welfare, eliminate child labor laws, eliminate the 40-hour work week, eliminate antitrust laws, etc.
The reason why we must have a minimum wage law and these other laws in our economy is because of the power of economic coercion. The reality of today's economy is that if you are unable to find a job, you become homeless and destitute. Under this system, the job that an employer holds in his/her hand means survival. If you cannot get a job, you starve.
In an environment where there are millions of unemployed people, an employer can enter the job market and play starving people off of one another to drive wages down. It's as simple as that. That's why corporations are able to go to third world nations and pay employees a dollar or two a day for their labor.
By giving everyone a $25,000 stipend, we give everyone economic independence and eliminate this form of economic coercion. Many capitalists and politicians do not like this idea because it eliminates the power that economic coercion gives them. We, The People, should enact the stipend to give ourselves true economic independence.
[em01][em01]
扫码加好友，拉您进群
全部版块
我的主页
