{"sourceInsights":[{"id":"116254221","lede":"\"From an institutionalist perspective, the creation of the social product is entirely a social activity and is more than the result of the efforts of individuals involved in the production process. In fact, the greatest contribution to our affluence cannot be assigned to individuals at all. The stock of communal knowledge and the cultural institutions that have been developed over the centuries are the reasons our society is rich rather than poor. Those who are particularly rich in our society are so because they happen to fill specific positions in the social provisioning process that allows them to take a disproportionate share of social output. A Basic Income recognizes the social nature of income generation and the large share of output due to \"society and history\" and distributes it among all citizens.\"","slug":"basic-income-would-assist-in-the-social-absorption-of-social-output","title":"Basic income would assist in the social 'absorption' of social output.","showTitleAsQuote":false,"epistemicStatus":"theoretical","reports":[{"id":"19519421","title":"Basic Income","slug":"basic-income"},{"id":"74233750","title":"Land Value Tax","slug":"land-value-tax"}],"tags":[{"slug":"universalism","name":"Universalism","id":"101707811","lede":"

One of the defining conflicts of economic discourse today is the debate over whether government programs should be 'targeted' to particular demographics - such as stimulus payments only going to those who earn less than $75,000 per year - or if they should be 'universal', provided to all citizens (and taxed to adjust distribution afterwards).

\n\n

Universal programs boast the virtue of simplicity, while carrying the burden of size. Universal programs require far less bureaucracy, since no determination of who is eligible for payments is required. Advocates suggest that society can still tailor the distributional effects of universal programs by taxing 'on the backend'. But universal programs thus carry significantly higher gross costs, and require greater disbursement of public funds up front.

\n\n

Targeted programs effectively 'tax on the frontend', adjusting the distribution of a program before giving it out. Thus, they have smaller price tags, but require more complex infrastructure to keep track of eligibility and adjust accordingly.

\n","ledeExcerpt":"One of the defining conflicts of economic discourse today is the debate over whether government programs should be 'targeted' to particular demographics - such as stimulus payments only going to those who earn less than $75,000 per year - or if they should be 'universal', provided to all citizens.\n\nUniversal programs boast the virtue of simplicity, while carrying the burden of size. Universal programs require far less bureaucracy, since no determination of who is eligible for payments is required. Advocates suggest that society can still tailor the distributional effects of universal programs by taxing 'on the backend'. But universal programs thus carry significantly higher gross costs, and require greater disbursement of public funds up front.\n\nTargeted programs effectively 'tax on the frontend', adjusting the distribution of a program before giving it out. Thus, they have smaller price tags, but require more complex infrastructure to keep track of eligibility and adjust accordingly.","featured":true},{"slug":"stability","name":"Stability","id":"23916385","lede":"

We define stability as the resiliency, robustness, and constancy of our nested social, financial, and environmental systems. Stability is the degree to which our systems can withstand stress and maintain their functionality over time.

\n\n

Why do we need stability? All else equal, a stable society is preferable to an unstable society. Stability - the product of the harmonious interaction between parts, or interwoven systems - protects against uncertainty and decay. For example, a healthy body regulates its blood glucose levels to provide cells with their required energy. Too much glucose makes cells sticky, with a paralyzing effect. Too little glucose starves them. What's important is the constancy of glucose regulation within functional limits, and the resiliency to maintain this regulation amidst adversity.

\n\n

Instability occurs when systems transgress functional limits, causing the breakdown of other systems and suffering for those who depend on them. When interlocking systems remain stable, they provide a fertile foundation for positive expectations that fuel investments in progress and broad cooperation throughout society.

\n","ledeExcerpt":"We define stability as the resiliency, robustness, and constancy of our nested social, financial, and environmental systems. Stability is the degree to which our systems can withstand stress and maintain their functionality over time. \n\nWhy do we need stability? All else equal, a stable society is preferable to an unstable society. Stability - the product of the harmonious interaction between parts, or interwoven systems - protects against uncertainty and decay. For example, a healthy body regulates its blood glucose levels to provide cells with their required energy. Too much glucose makes cells sticky, with a paralyzing effect. Too little glucose starves them. What's important is the constancy of glucose regulation within functional limits, and the resiliency to maintain this regulation amidst adversity.\n\nInstability occurs when systems transgress functional limits, causing the breakdown of other systems and suffering for those who depend on them. When interlocking systems remain stable, they provide a fertile foundation for positive expectations that fuel investments in progress and broad cooperation throughout society.","featured":true}],"sources":[{"id":"116254201","lede":"A Keynesian articulation of the \"institutionalist\" case for basic income. Namely, that value is a collective production, and policies like basic income allow for a collective benefit of that value creation.","link":"https://www.jstor.org/stable/4452238","slug":"basic-income-inequality-and-unemployment-rethinking-the-linkage-between-work-and","kind":"Academic Paper","title":"Basic Income, Inequality, and Unemployment: Rethinking the Linkage between Work and Welfare","year":"1996-01-01","researchers":[{"id":"116254187","location":"St. John's University","name":"Charles M. A. Clark","seoDescription":"","slug":"charles-m-a-clark"},{"id":"116254190","location":"University College, Cork","name":"Catherine Cavanagh","seoDescription":"","slug":"catherine-cavanagh"}]}]}],"source":{"id":"116254201","lede":"A Keynesian articulation of the \"institutionalist\" case for basic income. Namely, that value is a collective production, and policies like basic income allow for a collective benefit of that value creation.","link":"https://www.jstor.org/stable/4452238","slug":"basic-income-inequality-and-unemployment-rethinking-the-linkage-between-work-and","kind":"Academic Paper","title":"Basic Income, Inequality, and Unemployment: Rethinking the Linkage between Work and Welfare","year":"1996-01-01","researchers":[{"id":"116254187","location":"St. John's University","name":"Charles M. A. Clark","seoDescription":"","slug":"charles-m-a-clark"},{"id":"116254190","location":"University College, Cork","name":"Catherine Cavanagh","seoDescription":"","slug":"catherine-cavanagh"}]}}