Debate on debt and false pretenses

[pb2488]

it's scary ... I already had a doubt about the GDP but I have the impression that we see the problem here

if a big company manufactures cars by also manufacturing all the components, and even steel and aluminum it will only count once in the GDP

if a bunch of small companies sell subsets and services, how is it counted?

The same:

GDP is equal to the sum of the added values ​​of resident economic agents, calculated at market prices, to which we add the share of value added recovered by the State

[Philippe Schutt]

The thing with traders, some win and others lose, in fact we could laugh about it ...
Except that the price of materials ends up disconnecting from the cost of production and the end consumer pays more. Sometimes very expensive (during the bubble), and sometimes more or less at cost (between bubble periods).
It can also be argued that these bubbles would not exist without excess money in the economic circuit.

[pb2488]

If nobody wants to work, wages will increase (the cost of living too) and become attractive again. NLC described it very well on the island The market will self-regulate.

If wages increase but so does the cost of living: The situation does not change, people will still not want to work (ex: No one wants to get up at night to bake bread -> the price of bread increases to increase the baker's salary -> no one can afford bread any more -> consumers' incomes must be increased, etc etc). The market is not self-regulating, it is racing !!!

If the cost of living increases, we must also increase the 1000 € of "universal income" (financed how?).

[nlc]

(ex: No one wants to get up at night to bake bread -> the price of bread increases to increase the baker's salary -> no one can afford bread -> We must increase consumers' incomes, etc. etc. ). The market is not self-regulating, it is racing !!!

This is indeed what is happening in reality anyway: prices tend to increase, suddenly the state decides to increase the minimum wage, but prices are still increasing, so is the minimum wage, etc.

[Philippe Schutt]

meanwhile we will have invented the automatic bread maker and the bakers will be happy with the € 1000. That said, the RSA system in France, or unemployment in Belgium is more or less the same.

[sen-no-sen]

(ex: No one wants to get up at night to bake bread -> the price of bread increases to increase the baker's salary -> no one can afford bread -> We must increase consumers' incomes, etc. etc. ). The market is not self-regulating, it is racing !!!

This is indeed what is happening in reality anyway: prices tend to increase, suddenly the state decides to increase the minimum wage, but prices are still increasing, so is the minimum wage, etc.

Correct, moreover it is astonishing that political "leaders" often speak of a radical increase in the minimum wage (1500 € / month, I am not quoting anyone ...), whereas such a measure does not change anything, the cost of living increasing at the same time.
The solution lies in lowering the cost of living, but it requires efforts that challenge the whole system.

[pb2488]

Having said that, I agree that banks do not have to create money, it should only be possible for central banks, and with restrictions.

Who says monetary creation, says monetary destruction .... Do not forget.

On the other hand, if governments had not so much blazed and created such a deficit everything would be

+1

[pb2488]

Correct, moreover it is astonishing that political "leaders" often speak of a radical increase in the minimum wage (1500 € / month, I am not quoting anyone ...), whereas such a measure does not change anything, the cost of living increasing at the same time.

+1, measure completely demotic.

The solution lies in a reduction in the cost of living, (...)

How?

[Ahmed]

The problem does not seem to me to be posed in these terms, PB2488.
Why reduce the cost of living or increase the minimum wage?
It is in order to respond to a very / too great disparity of income which penalizes the lowest incomes in a self-amplifying spiral.
Of course, the advanced solutions to meet this requirement are chosen from those which are painless, since they have no effects in the medium term. The renewal of these ineffective therapies finds their justification in the simple fact that if they do not solve poverty, at least make it more bearable, if only in terms of hope ...

[Obamot]

If you give me 1000 € per month, I stop working right away.

So is that your job does not suit you
Stopping for a while is the first thing that comes to mind, everyone has already thought "if I had time, I ..."
But after?

Well yes, there it is clear! The foundations of a "new theoretical model" must be established. This is what I said above.

The universal dividend is like the Marie frozen pizza: "It is not because everything is done, that nothing should be done".

We make the unemployed "beggars" with a scorecard ... We transform them into doorbell shooters ...

But who said you should just receive money and ... do nothing?

Some small examples
(inspired by your answers but especially the idea of ​​“value”)

1) Isn't humanizing society also "valuing"? In any case, it would be a factor in reducing delinquency, and it can very well be calculated!

2) A housewife (or man) may consider having a "full time activity»With several dependent young children! Its counterpart of the "dividend" would then be perfectly justified, since it would contribute to the demographic balance, which would ultimately allow us to ... pay our pensions on the one hand and compensate for the endemic absence of crêches on the other go!

3) An SA pays dividends to its “shareholders”, ok! But they made a contribution by buying shares (which somewhere is a form of corporate debt ... In short,). So the shareholder receives something depending on what he has invested.

Why not do the same with the universal dividend. Therefore we can imagine several ways to ("s)" invest "by valuing at the same time" individual responsibility ". Much like the point license, the citizen could capitalize on “human value”:
- by the level of their professional training;
- by "ranks" accumulated throughout his career;
- through inventiveness having produced substantial results (patents, etc.);
- by a commitment in political life, civil society, etc ...
- by "merits" collected by doing prevention (practice of a regular sport, diet, since this will have a positive repercussion in the reduction of the costs of the health sector ...)
or what do I know ...

The whole would be reconverted pro-rata into a contribution in the form of a "universal dividend". I still see a problem in all of this: how to separate the situations "private VS professional"... But this is obviously not the only problem that this migration would pose ... However it is not without advantages for the citizens!

Thus, someone losing their job in a company, would not see themselves ex abrupto deprived of the "merits" accumulated throughout their journey ...

So yes to the universal dividend, as long as it motivates to contribute to activities useful for society, which are not sufficiently valued today: this is Did67's opinion, which I share in another way!