Charles Murray ON UNIVERSAL BASIC INCOME VS UNIVERSAL ECONOMIC DIVIDEND First a

http://www.aei.org/multimedia/the-doolittle-effect-charles-murrays-in-our-hands/comment-page-1/#comment-154183Dear Charles Murray

ON UNIVERSAL BASIC INCOME VS UNIVERSAL ECONOMIC DIVIDEND

First a bit of humor: (wink) thank you for further advancing the disparaging narrative against a great norman name. 🙂 What further thought crimes will be done to the sons and daughters of the Norman Radolfo De Dolietta (Doolittle), his descendants, the literate Puritans who escaped the english civil war and founded towns throughout Connecticut – and the many sergeants, captains of generals before and after them. “Dwoo’-little” has been a middle class land-holding name since the Norman conquest. 🙂 And Puritans never needed a reason for production. They were economic eugenicists like all those who advanced Bipartite Manorialism.

That ancestral defense aside, I’ll offer a counter-argument against the ‘Doolittle Effect’:

1) If women are more narrowly distributed than men. (they are)

2) And if women only desire to marry and stay married upward. (they do)

3) And if no man who is available to many women are desirable by women (they aren’t)

4) And if women do not economically need a man. (they don’t)

5) And if men marry and divorce bearing child support rather than trading productivity for a new mate, they will almost universally die lonely and poor – and we should see increasing rates of suicide. (We do)

6) Then there is no incentive for man or woman to marry – or reproduce. (there isn’t)

7) And the Universal Basic Income will only exacerbate the existing trend. (True)

8) Because it will increase the possibility of non-working or black-market subsistence for even more people.

UBI is extremely risky. If instead, we provided returns on the economy per quarter or per year then the incentives of the population would be to limit immigration of dependents, and limit reproduction of the lower classes, as a means of preventing dilution of their income.

So for this reason a ‘dependable’ UBI provides a malincentive in every possible way; while a ‘market’ or ‘national dividend on the economy’ produces every possible good incentive that the UBI seeks to provide.

The Singapore and Corpus Christi models are calculable. The intergenerational promissory models of the socialist era are non logical, fragility-inducing, and behaviorally dangerous.

Curt Doolittle

The Propertarian Institute

Keiv, Ukraine

http://www.aei.org/multimedia/the-doolittle-effect-charles-murrays-in-our-hands/comment-page-1/