Slashdot Mirror
Cryptocurrency Based Basic Income Program Started In Finland
jovius writes: Krypto Fin ry, the association behind Fimkrypto cryptocurrency (FIMK), has started to provide each registered Finnish citizen a payment of 1000 FIMK per month in December. 1000 FIMK equals few dimes at the moment, and a bit over 100 people have registered so far. (The registration is free.)
FIMK is based on NXT 2nd generation crypto system; the add-ons and development making it into 2.5G. The roadmap includes payment cards and other technology to enable easier exchange between fiat currencies — FIMK, Bitcoins and others. Krypto Fin ry received 533 BTC in initial donations last Summer. FIMK can be traded for example on DGEX, and it's also a valid payment method in few stores in Finland.
FIMK is based on NXT 2nd generation crypto system; the add-ons and development making it into 2.5G. The roadmap includes payment cards and other technology to enable easier exchange between fiat currencies — FIMK, Bitcoins and others. Krypto Fin ry received 533 BTC in initial donations last Summer. FIMK can be traded for example on DGEX, and it's also a valid payment method in few stores in Finland.
Con artists try to encourage entire nation to fall victim to their con by promising to pay them money every month.
Seriously, if it looks too good to be true (they're paying you for doing nothing), it probably is.
Another lib ploy to bring on the communist state. Finland, you should be smarter than this. You ARE smarter than this.
You can't just give everyone cryptocoins (effectively tokens) and expect them to get value... at the heart, a basic income is welfare, and requires wealth redistribution. The value has to come from somewhere.
I found and copied an article about a possible implementation that solves this issue. It's hidden in discordian bullshit, but I think the theory is sound... if somewhat dangerous.
Valuable in the imagination of the proponents.
what does bennett haselton write?
"Thanks Stephen Elop!"
All these digital currencies have spawned for the same reason - it's easy to mine out coins in the easy stages so early adopters are incentivized to lie and hype up the currency (the usual BS about libertarianism, fiat currency etc.) in order to boost its value (and thus their coins). When enough rubes have been suckered into buying or mining coins the early adopters exit with a profit. It's basically a crowd sourced ponzi. Bitcoin was the first and all these wannabes are just trying to reboot the scam from the start.
They probably haven't had to pay 600 € per month per bank since they're using a middle man between themselves and all the banks. That is a little bit cheaper.
ooficers. Others conducted at MIT
... easier exchange between fiat currencies — FIMK, Bitcoins and others."
I think you don't understand the meaning of "Fiat". By definition, these are non-fiat currencies. Fiat currencies are those created by government decree (a.k.a. a fiat).
No. Well...maybe. Actually, yes. It really just depends.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A...
Also, tell that to senior citizens in the USA who almost all get a what is essentially a basic income from Social Security. Most seniors have *not* paid full value into that relative to what they expect to get out of it, so it is not like a retirement investment plan (even if people pay a tax that goes towards it when they work for wages). Social Security in the USA is essentially an income redistribution system, originally based on ten young workers to one elderly person (original recipients had not paid into the system) and now at about three young workers per elderly person. Personally, I feel it is unfair that the elderly in the USA get Medicare and Social Security when everyone else does not and these days reflects age discrimination backed by the political power of the elderly in the USA. Many young parents, for example, have a very hard lot, often caught between caring for their young children and their own elderly parents, while also needing to hold down a full-time job with increasingly worse benefits. A basic income would make it possible for more young parents to spend more time with their own young children while also caring for their own parents. I feel the resolution to the age discrimination issue there is to make the two programs of Medicare and Social Security available to every US citizen without discrimination based on age. We can then talk about eventually expanding those programs to all residents, legal or not, and then looking at doing it globally.
Arguments for a basic income include that, because governments have privatized almost all land, citizens have some right to the fruits of the land. Also, citizens have a claim to some of the fruits of the common inheritance of ideas and so on.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/S...
http://www.basicincome.org/bie...
http://www.usbig.net/
http://www.livableincome.org/
See also my essay: http://www.pdfernhout.net/basi... ..."
"One may ask, why should millionaires support a basic income as depicted in Marshall Brain's Australia Project fictional example in "Manna", but, say, right now in the USA, of US$2000 a month per person (with some deducted for universal health insurance), or $24K per year? With about 300 million residents in the USA, this would require about seven trillion US dollars a year, or half the current US GDP. Surely such a proposal would be a disaster for millionaires in terms of crushing taxes? Or would it?
Anyway, even while I'm not especially a fan of crypto currencies (good currencies need to be backed by a social constitution controlling their production IMHO), I applaud the experiment in this direction.
A 21st century issue: the irony of technologies of abundance in the hands of those still thinking in terms of scarcity.
To be clear, my comment is more directed to the implication from the poster's point that a "basic income" itself is a "con" (assuming that was part of what was intended). There could indeed be any number of specific problems with this specific cryptocurrency proposal, including privacy or identity theft issues as raised by other posters. Building in a basic income aspect is an interesting way to get publicity for a cryptocurrency, but as I said, a good currency is backed by a community constitution, which is going to imply checks and balances and various safeguards. If those are not in place here, like to prevent identity theft, than that could be a big problem.
However, as another comparison, LETS (Local Exchange Trading Systems) systems have helped a lot of communities, and may treat LETS currency more as a lose account of favors owed than more what we think of as hard currency. ... just as they would from family and friends. But rather than do all this helping without any recording at all, keeping LETS accounts allows the group to keep track of the members' activities so they can balance their trading activities fairly, knowing that once their accounts are back to zero, they have given to the group just as much as they have received. Basically, it's just a matter of keeping score and nothing more."
http://www.lets-linkup.com/
"Let me start by saying that the generally accepted view by all LETS people is that a LETS point is not cash, or federal currency, and I agree. However, I do not feel comfortable viewing LETS points as an alternative currency with an equivalent value in cash. I prefer to interpret LETS points as being like LETS favours. That has always made trading more enjoyable for me. I love doing favours for members and they show genuine appreciation for the favour - in LETS points. It doesn't get any better than that! I view LETS more like a voluntary self-help group where like-minded people in a local community give their time and experience to help their fellow members and feel welcomed to ask for the same in return
A 21st century issue: the irony of technologies of abundance in the hands of those still thinking in terms of scarcity.
a bit over 100
So, 108?
Fiat currency has value, if for no other reason, because everyone needs it to pay their taxes. That's the unchangeable, fundamental value - ~everyone wants it because most everyone needsneeds it to pay taxes. Because the local store owner wants dollars to pay her taxes, she'll give me a box of cereal in exchange for dollars. Therefore, dollars are valuable to me even if I didn't pay taxes.
I actually pay half my income as various taxes, but even if I didn't, I could use dollars to get stuff from someone else who needs to pay their taxes.
Your grossly simplified thought experiment is missing many things of course, but most importantly you assume that people don't change their behavior based on the rewards l. Specifically, you assume that people aren't motivated by money.
Let's take as an example a typical person currently bringing home $30,000. Under your scenario, they'd have a choice: they could continue working and bringing home $30,000, or they could stop working, play video games all day, and get $25,000. For many people, that would be an easy decision, and they wouldn't decide to keep working for $25,000 as you assume they would.
It gets worse. Their children have the choice of going to school today, and studying hard today, in hopes of making $30k fifteen years from now, or they can skip school, eat Cheetoh's all day, and plan to live on the $25k they'll get from the taxpayers. Now you have a whole generation of uneducated dolts who couldn't produce much value even if you fixed the policies that caused it.
As a mental exercise two years ago I took the time to calculate what my investment would have been worth if my yearly SS contribution was put in the stock market starting with my first paycheck in 1970. Most of my life I made less then forty thousand a year. It would have been six-hundred and fifty thousand. For gold it would have been the same. I calculated Apple stock and almost got sick. Most people probably use up that much in Medicare but that is another discussion.
To the poster volmtech, the idea of a privately investing social security sounds good, until something goes wrong and you end up with a lot less. A low interest with a guarantee is better than a high interest gamble.
To Paul Fernhout...
I'd favor a negative income tax. Here is my proposal...
(Poverty Level - Federal AGI) / 2 = Credit
Legal residents only
Must be 22+ years old
18-21, must be living away from relatives
17 and younger, must be living away from relatives and emancipated
If married, it goes by the younger individual.
I also say we need single-payer universal healthcare (think a Medicare/Medicaid hybrid) along with prescription drug patent reform.
Also, cap federal Direct loans at inflation based on the CPI. Among other things.
As for the negative income tax thing, imagine four individuals, all homeless, being able to pool their $5.5k together (assuming a federal AGI of $0/year each) and renting out a place to live together.
I think basic income as mentioned would be too extreme. Too burdensome as it would require a huge overhaul.
And if I'm not mistaken, social security is based on the best 35 years and some formula.
Personally, I feel it is unfair that the elderly in the USA get Medicare and Social Security when everyone else does not
The most ridiculous part of this is that the elderly are the group that consumes the majority of health care services, and thus the US is bearing the majority of the brunt of an entirely public health care system anyways. I have a feeling this is why health care spending is so much higher in the US than other countries.Why not just cover the generally-freak accidents of people in their youth for the small incremental cost?
Health care is one industry, much like policing or firefighting, that is makes no sense to not run as a public program. It will undoubtedly take the US another 20-30 years to figure this out. Oh, and the excessive health care spending doesn't translate into results, at least if we go by life expectancy.
The study actually proves my point nicely. The subjects did just enough to get the minimum - they didn't do better to get more. Applying that to this discussion, the results indicate people would sign up for basic income just as they signed up for the study. They would not be more productive, working all day, to make $30,000 instead of the $25,000 that's adequate.
Go visit anyone truly in need and offer them $500. You'll find that most people will do almost anything to get what they NEED - even go to work if NECESARY. As the study you mentioned found, most won't do much more than that to get more.
Few notes here.
First, you provide a basic income to everyone, expectations change (everyone expects their kids to always get basic income), and population goes up. You cannot back that kind of a plan without pretty solid resource planning. The alternative to letting people starve on their whim or by the situation, or enabling the chaos of the market to make selections, is to elect someone to play God.
Second, those Billions of dollars the rich have, can't readily be converted into resources; it's just money. If you jack a billionaire, the math of dividing a billion dollars by the cost of a loaf of bread by number of needy in the general population, doesn't work. There's an entire economy of rich people who do nothing but play financialized games and they mix in actual, productive companies with the fake Chinese fire-drills they fund, on a frequent enough basis, to induce a fair amount of hemorrhaging in our lives. If that class of leeches were removed tomorrow, companies would be a lot more stable, and products and services would get a fair bit cheaper, and would be of immensely better quality.
Third, Capitalism is the ultimate socialism because, in holding society to consistent values from one generation to the next, it disables any one single individual or group from taking control of society, and at the same point in time, it provides equal opportunity for everyone to make something of themselves. It enables technology to greatly improve our lives. So long as human dignity is held in the highest regard, meaning that people realize working 80 hour weeks, and using desperation to make a buck, are never to be tolerated by anyone, ever, then it works.
Forth and finally, the baby boomers will be remembered as the "We take whatever we want and fuck you" generation. Index social security to average age and break up the medical monopolies, that will fix this. Politically, there are a lot of rotten apples, and everyone is believing the horseshit line of "get what you deserve".
> heres another thought experiment for you, how many people would become more educated if they didng have to worry about working for an income to survive?
Most people go to college in order to get a better job. They show up in high school in order to get into college. Most people (not all) are essentially lazy - they will sit on their butt if they don't need to do more than that to meet their "needs". (Where needs is defined by media, etc.) If you doubt that, show up to any government office building at 5:15 PM and see how many people are still there, doing extra to serve the community. You'll see it's roughly zero. Any of them could theoretically stick around serving the society, but they do't - they leave at five because that's al that's required to get the paycheck.
>. All of that is irrelevant to the point that my thought experiment was responding to, which is how much would BI cost relative to current expenditures.
Current expenditures IN ABSOLUTE TERMS is irrelevant. Here's a thought experiment for you. In the 1950s, the median income was $25k in today's dollars. Suppose EVERYONE decided that they didn't need a bigger house than their parents - not if they could get that same $25k by sitting on their butt and expecting someone else take care of them. So everyone is sitting at home, nobody is working. The taxpayer is paying for everyone. Problem - there ARE no taxpayers, because everyone is sitting home expecting the other guy to pay his bills. No taxpayers, no revenue, no payments. No payments, no food. You've just created a situation where Americans are literally starving to death. See how people's response to policies kind of matters a little bit?
There actually is a limit to how many people can sit on their butt vs how many need to be working. It's a little over 50%. One guy working can't provide for ten parasites (and wouldn't if he could). You can have have, at max, about three parasites for every two productive people. And the US is almost at that ratio now.
Having said all that, since you think it's such a good idea, I wonder why you're in the US. Greece, Cuba, France, and Iran all have economic systems that suit your preferences much better.
Once again you have assumed that no one would be willing to work for more than a poverty wage when in *current reality* ~85% of households are both willing and able to do so.