Barcelona's poorest residents to trial minimum income scheme in social experiment

TheLocal.es ^ | 1 June 2017 14:02 CEST+02:00 | Fiona Govan

[Olog-hai]

Barcelona’s poorest district is to pilot a “basic income” scheme that will see residents given grants to lift them above the breadline in a ground-breaking social experiment.

The Barcelona district of Besós has been picked to test a €13 million European Union funded pilot scheme investigating “innovative and creative solutions” to urban poverty.

The Catalan capital has been chosen alongside Utrecht in the Netherlands and the Finnish city of Helsinki to test the scheme, which will see the poorest residents in each chosen district given grants for two years to lift them above the breadline.

In the B-Mincome experiment, 1,000 randomly selected low-income households in the Besós district will be given grants of between €400 and €525 a month for two years. Those taking part will be divided into four distinct groups and given the grants in different forms as a way of analyzing the ways in which low income families can be best helped. …

[jjsheridan5]

The problem with that kind of definition is that it is so vague that it quickly becomes meaningless. If the government creates regulations that, indirectly, provide make-work jobs that add no value, is that socialism? If the government adds value to a particular piece of property, thus giving someone additional wealth without requiring work, is that socialism? If the government creates a job which does not add to the production of anything, is that socialism? And so on. It is a slippery slope, intellectually. Ordinarily, it wouldn't matter. But the problem is that when good, or potentially good, ideas and approaches are rejected because they seem to meet that slippery definition.

The bottom line is that Milton Friedman was right. As were the other conservative economists who advocated similar positions. We cannot stick our head in the sand -- one way or another, there is going to be a welfare system (I, and you, may disagree, but 90+% of people would demand at least some welfare system). The question isn't whether there should be a welfare system, but rather "what is the method of welfare that is best, in terms of fraud, abuse, efficiency, and in terms of its effect on the larger economy?" And as the economic efficiencies drive the labor cost of services and goods relentlessly down, a trend that will only increase over time, this is a question that becomes increasingly pressing: how do we adjust to an era in which the organic economy meets people's needs, without creating a sufficient demand for labor? As I said, conservative economists have been right on this question. But the left is now stealing the issue (and we all know that they will not replace welfare with universal income -- universal income will simply be added to the expansive welfare state).

[piasa]

... But by then the youngest raccoons have no survival skills because they have been raised knowing nothing but the safe easy meal provided on your porch.

Their mothers didn’t teach them to feel for crawdads in the mud in the woods, or to turn over rocks for invertebrates, or how to raid a bird nest for eggs.

They never spent much time in the woods; they lived under your porch... in your barn... in your neighbor’s shed, stealing hen’s eggs from his henhouse.

Until one day that dog showed up, and next thing you know, there were dead baby raccoons and the terrified survivors ran for the woods. But what to do? They were worse off than the original ‘possums and raccoons had been at the beginning when they lived wild in the woods. At least the original raccoons and possums could go back to their old hardscrabble ways. But these young ones had no hardscrabble ways to fall back to.

[alexander_busek]

Thomas Paine said it best...........”what we obtain too cheaply, we eschew too lightly”...

I suspect that you are quoting from memory, right?

eschew ɪsˈtʃuː,ɛsˈtʃuː/

verb

verb: eschew; 3rd person present: eschews; past tense: eschewed; past participle: eschewed; gerund or present participle: eschewing

deliberately avoid using; abstain from.

"he appealed to the crowd to eschew violence"

The quote reads "...we esteem too lightly."

Regards,

[alexander_busek]

Lizavetta: Someone please explain to my why prices won’t increase due to all this newly available money floating around.

Garth Tater: Before you can give a dollar euro to a man that didn't earn it you have to take it from a man that did. Same number of euros, just in different pockets now.

But working people tend to spend their money differently than parasites. So the prices of goods preferred by the parasites (street drugs, cheap liquor, etc.) will increase, while the prices of goods preferred by the workers (milk, vegetables, bread) will decrease.

Regards,

[Garth Tater]

That's true, and then you can add in the "printed from thin air" nature of euros (and dollars) so there really will be some additional euros in circulation after this govt spending goes into effect, but I was trying to keep it simple and the additional euros printed into existence will barely be noticeable in the current ongoing flood of govt spending. I also doubt the cash redirected by poor people to drugs and other cheap distractions will be enough to make many noticeable price changes considering the size of the current market :)

I do think when this latest trial balloon of "guaranteed income" comes into wide spread effect - and it will since it's like giving crack to addicts - we are going to see all sorts of unintended consequences.

[Trod Upon]

Not with fiat money. They will simply expand the money supply out of thin air. Although, I guess you could still say they are stealing wealth from savers since they will be further debasing the currency to do this.

[Chaguito]

4-500 euros will buy enough alcohol to make it to the end of each month. This will go nowhere, as the recipients will be lobbied in the medium future by communists to revolt against the low amounts they receive. And it is ultimately the logical extreme of multi-generational welfare.

[Garth Tater]

Some of the new govt spending will be backed by taxes - some of it will be printed out of thin air. The fact of the matter is, NONE of it belongs in the pockets of able-bodied people that didn't earn it. Minor changes in the prices of drugs, food, flat screen TVs and many other things are not the real problem here. Creating a population of freeloaders whether financed by taxes or magic money is.

Once this idea of "guaranteed basic income" spreads it is going to tear what was once a productive, civilized society apart. Once this gets going only fools will work - and then we all starve.

[Chaguito]

4-500 euros will buy enough alcohol to make it to the end of each month. This will go nowhere, as the recipients will be lobbied in the medium future by communists to revolt against the low amounts they receive. And it is ultimately the logical extreme of multi-generational welfare.

[piytar]

This is not innovative. It’s just another form of Marxism and will fail. Badly. (Although it may - repeat MAY - have some initial success it will ultimately fail.)

[jch10]

The US has been doing this for decades. See how well that has worked?

[TheNext]

SOLUTION

A solution to welfare is incrementally replacing it with home ownership. (c) TheNext

Let the people beg for food and medical care, but they will not be living on the street. This is the Raccoon equivalent of relocating all critters to other habitat.

This discourages landlording especially those living off the taxpayer, which is immoral. Give welfare mommas ownership in coffin apartments. They can upgrade by getting married.

The Fed Reserve created welfare. It must be stigmatized as the “Federal Reserve Welfare” system which destroys ownership and money. The quote, you will all be living on the street is here.

Federal Reserve: LOCK THEM UP.

[Cen-Tejas]

............respectfully, I disagree that 90+ of people would demand at least “some” welfare system.

My problem with your arguments is that you don’t give credence or even lip service to the fact that the Federal Government, due to many factors including affirmative action, unions, politicians, nepotism, racism (both ways) no accountability in hiring, firing, performance and so on and so on has demonstrated itself time and time again to be beyond any shadow of the doubt INCAPABLE of running ANY enterprise of any kind or nature whatsoever.

You fix all those problems and them come back to me about passing out more free money. Until then, I remain absolutely unalterably opposed to the government launching ANY program. I wouldn’t hire em to sharpen pencils!

[Cen-Tejas]

.............you are correct on all counts

[samtheman]

Someone please explain to my why prices won’t increase due to all this newly available money floating around.

---

First of all, it’s a “pilot” program, with very few participants, so it won’t change prices anywhere.

Second, what’s the “pilot” going to test, whether or not people will be happy to receive monetary gifts?

And if and when they move from a “pilot” to “nationwide”, then your question comes in to play. If they print up a whole bunch of money, and hand it out to a whole bunch of people, they will do nothing but wreck their economy. But that’s no small “nothing”. That’s the kind of “nothing” that leftists love.

[monkeywrench]

Lol! So true. I can remember walking into the kitchen and seeing a raccoon dragging the bag of dog food out the door. It was a screen door I forgot to latch! And yes I fed them everyday.

[Trod Upon]

Probably a guaranteed outcome wherever those being supported by their neighbors’ taxes are still allowed to vote.