Push To Implement Basic Income For All

[onawah]

I'm not sure which book you are referring to, Mike.
Is it "Messages from Michael" by Chelsea Quinn Yarbro?
There have been quite a few books about the Michael Teachings, and more coming, no doubt. See:
http://www.itstime.com/michael.htm
If you google Michael Teachings, you will find lots of articles, books, links to different teachers, etc..
There is a whole network, worldwide, though I think mostly concentrated in California.
There used to be a chat group and a forum too (and probably still is) where you could direct questions to various of the teacher/channelers, who would take turns answering.
The entire subject matter is fascinating, imho, and worthy of pursuit.

Posted by Mike (here)
I thought i was the only one who read that book Nat....I found it buried in the "occult" section at my local used book store.

Fascinating book. Never read anything quite like it.

The ouija board group, right?

Everything about it seemed dubious from the beginning...until it began making relentless logical sense. It was so involved and so detailed and reasonable that it ultimately won me over.

I agree with everything you said.

[Mike]

this one Nat:

[onawah]

Yep, that's a good one, Mike!

[Carmody]

Posted by Mike (here)
Ultimately its a spiritual issue, I think.

There is a great apathy that has settled into the hearts of millions of people. They may not know what the "illuminati" is, but they are very aware that the deck is stackly largely against them.

This idea, this so called american dream is largely a myth. People are finally finding out. Their best efforts - even if they work very very hard - rarely if ever result in what they had envisioned.

The game is rigged. So why play? Why knock yourself out? I take walks most nights in a lovely little village near a lake, populated mostly by nice but modest homes..and I often think about how pleasant it would be to own one..that is until I consider all the work involved. Those people worked themselves ragged for those modest little homes...and they don't even really own them...in most instances, the banks do. Thats no dream..thats a nightmare.

Me..i'd rather work some easy, sh!tty little worry free job, go home to a small studio apartment and drink myself to sleep. At least it gives me the freedom to think. Besides, you work hard all your life...blood.sweat n tears...and then theres an orchestrated crash and youre no better off than me anyway. A part of me has always viewed my so called unproductivity as clever...and I still do. I take a certain pride in it.

Ever work a commission based job? Great job Mike, you hit your numbers. Well done. but then they just keep raising the numbers. They become impossible to hit. And when you don't hit them you get demoted. Thats your reward for hitting your numbers the first time. Most jobs are like this...if not literally than metaphorically.


Ultimately there are no "ists" "isms" or "ocracy" that will change the hearts of men. No matter how seemingly fair and equitable a so called solution seems to be...there will always be someone there to corrupt or take advantage of it.....no matter if its capitalism, socialism, marxism so forth.

As long as our hearts are impure, none of it will matter. Our economic systems should ideally reflect our pure hearts...but instead they try to compensate for our moral deficiencies..and there are just way too many for any "ism" to even begin to contain.

The human race needs to evolve. quickly.

Meanwhile i'll be enjoying my unproductivity...

"Intelligence is applied laziness."

[Fredkc]

DaoZen;
1. Thanks Fredkc though I don't think I will ever be a conservative, at least not by today's definition.
2. If people truly want a world without money they will have to spend billions of dollars to get there.

1. YW.
Sadly, In modern times, the term "conservative", basically means "member of Republican party". Trouble is, almost the entire Repub. party, (and about half the Dems) are really just Fascists. Basically the group who now populates the halls of US govt. Why delse would it appear that a military presence in 140 of the ~180 countries abroad is considered to be an un-debatable necessity? It's Fascism in action. Or what was originally called, by Mussolini, "Corporatism". it needs to be gone.

2. Look back at the time of Churchill, and the quote I put up, and before, and you'll see that Conservative meant something very different. So different that the terms "Conservative", and "Liberal" were synonymous.

What these people were "Conservative" about, was the interference by government in anything. What they were "Liberal" about was the application of decisions, favoring personal freedom, liberally, whenever possible.

Kinda explains why I decided, 25 years ago, I'd never belong to either party again.
___________________________

Also cool you plugging earthship.com. I've long been a fan of Michael Reynold's stuff. Read and seen most of it, and gave away several of his books as Xmas presents, & such. Mostly he, and most sustainable ideas, get treated like pestilence among the bureaucracy. After all, a system that doesn't need government, just... doesn't need government, so it must be bad.

Ernie N.
1a. What happens when robots replace half the jobs in the economy? What happens when the people are not needed to do the labor? What happens to people who are no longer employable?
1b. We are already at the place where corporations and big business rake in monumental profits but the related jobs are in decline.

2. There is a growing group that is exactly that - unemployable. The only way to ensure employ-ability is to pay for higher levels of schooling.

1a: I spent 15 yrs doing the programming, setting up and operating of said computer controlled machinery. Lathes, mills, & robotics. All of it paid 3-5 times what operating a drill press ever did.

Then I spent another 5 years traveling/teaching people how to do same. It took me to all but 4 US states, got to 3 Canadian provinces, and once around the world. End result was that nearly every place I went, I left behind people who were worth more to their employers, themselves, more free to move up, and/or out on their own, with a better job. I get a lil warm & fuzzy when I think of it, so it isn't all a bad thing.

oh! By the way... the programming, setting up, operation of, maintenance, and repair of, said automation, all pay much better than running a drill press ever could, or will.

1b, & 2. I agree with much of what you say, here.
I, like you (if I recall aright), am what I term a "left-over hippie". Couldn't find a term in use for the rest of my sympathies so I use the term "Rabid Anti-Corporate Capitalist".

Basically I am worth, whatever the market will bear. When that is not enough, I will find either a better place to do that, or find something better paying to do with my time. I work to live, I do not live to work. Pretty well sums up my over-all sympathies.

Corporations, and their resultant infection are what is wrong with what has become of the US. A very telling question I once heard about the plague of corporations:
"Tell me what in nature:
a) never dies, and
b) grows at an annual rate of 5%, forever? ... And why?"
(No, kudzu doesn't count!)

Incidentally...

For an interesting speech on what to do about Corporations, try:
Richard Grossman
Revoking Corporate Charters
University of Colorado, Boulder, Colorado, February 13, 1997
Richard Grossman is co-director of the Program on Corporations, Law and Democracy. He is co-author of Taking Care of Business: Citizenship and the Charter of Incorporation. He was the director of Environmentalists for Full Employment.

Fred

[Ernie Nemeth]

FredKC

Then I spent another 5 years traveling/teaching people how to do same.

If I could have fallen into a training position, I might be far happier now. But then I would be in an untenable position because I would be supporting a system I do not endorse. The point for me is to not support this world with my efforts. Unfortunately, that has meant I must make do with far less than most. The upside is I don't have to work too much to pay my bills. The downside is I often can't pay my bills on time - no credit to get me by. Avalon donations have suffered recently, for example.

I envy your choices and applaud your journey. I wish I could go back and make different choices and come to different conclusions. But at the time I did not have all the facts I have today - or the support of the like-minded. I was very much on my own for many decades. All excuses, I know.

Those jobs, fixing robots and related equipment, will not be plentiful enough to keep everyone employed. A high tech world implies a world freed of much physical labor. That physical labor has been the backbone of the middle class. What of them?

[Carmody]

Posted by Carmody (here)
"Intelligence is applied laziness."

to expand on that, what I mean by that, I'll say a good friend of mine, did, what.... 10 years of university? Never really held a job in my knowing.

Instead, he created a unique niche and never works, except for when the phone rings. The rest of the time is his own, which comes in at about 95% of the rest of the year. He could have went to the big city and made millions, if he worked hard. Instead he took the time to live the way he wanted to and to hell with the rat race.

I did sort of the same, but took the low road, in order to arrive at the same destination. Welfare, low paying jobs, lots of unemployment, and so on. I could have easily went to university and received multiple degrees, but that seemed like too much work.

I spent my free time doing mostly the same as he did. Listen to music, think, ponder, learn more....and enjoy the air and the world. Why work like a frikin' hamster on a wheel? To what point? More hamstering on a wheel? Piss on that, I said, when I was 12. Not ****ing happening. Walk away before the circular argument even begins.

When I was 36, I decided to not be poor anymore. So I looked around me, figured out an avenue and then took it. I worked at it for about 5-6 years overall, and then removed myself from the process and offices, and let it run on it's original system, before I became involved.... and let it, with it's new inclusive product.... pay me a minimal monthly wage. And I've not worked again, in 11 years, now.

Probably +250 million (probably more) have seen what I did, but have no idea of what I speak of at all. And I'm not willing to clarify.

I could have worked like a dog for the past 11 years, and I'm not sure I'd really be any 'richer' for it. More than likely - not. I would have gotten in considerably more traveling, but I'd be full of every known vaccine, in the meantime.

I wasn't completely lazy in the intervening 11 years, as I ended up creating another unique consideration.. and put it on the market. One utilizing unique physics. As usual, the entire market is against it, as like the first one, which took over, in it's own way (probably over a 2-3 billion was spent due to it's existence allowing changes in that market).... it is changing the root paradigm, and would crash all others down... and out of existence.

Intelligence gets little to no respect, in this world, for the most part. Only if it satisfies the extant common paradigm, which is not a thing of intelligence..as it is of the common nature. The common nature being one of a more instinctual dance, outside of thought. The most intelligent are generally loners, not by choice but by the reality of the bell curve of life. One could be angry and try to eat the world as a pout driven penalty for the situation, but that's not good....

So, intelligence is applied laziness? Yes this is true. The same comes back, in a way, in different form... from Max Planck, the father of the quantum science:

"Scientific discovery and scientific knowledge have been achieved only by those who have gone in pursuit of it without any practical purpose whatsoever in view."

Would a basic minimum income engender more intelligence in people and ultimately be a benefit?

I Like to think it would. Not enough data. One thing for sure, is that the fundamentals could not be the same as they are today. A universal basic income cannot be considered in the current world mentality, no siree. Not gonna work.

The trick, the rub... is if the world could carry this whole thing while it shifts... and the question is how long.... and how well would the world shift into it? Would we be more unique or more like automatons in a frozen state?

[Fredkc]

Those jobs, fixing robots and related equipment, will not be plentiful enough to keep everyone employed.

Remember a poster called "Desiderata" ? It starts off:
"Go peacefully amidst the noise and confusion.... etc"
It was a point by point list of things to strive for, to lead a peaceful life in this madness.

Well, never willing to leave a good thing alone, the National Lampoon published a satire called:
Deteriorata
it starts off:
Go placidly amid the noise and waste, and remember what comfort there may be in owning a piece thereof.

Your statement reminded me of one of its lines:
Be comforted, that in the face of all aridity and disillusionment, and despite the changing fortunes of time, there is always a big future in computer maintenance.

I am what I call a "throwaway" in the job market. My specialty now is design, and implementation of SQL databases, and web interfaces for same. The sad truth is that, what I can do in one pass @ $50-&70 per hour, 8 hrs/day, can also be done in 18 hrs/day by 2 18yr olds tweaked outa their minds on Red Bull, Monster, & Doritos for $20/hr each.
Guess who gets hired?
Fred

[Carmody]

Being the wise man, Fred, who knows that 'fecal happens' and it is just a matter of time, and that no job comes off perfectly, I'll take you first.

Because there are GOING TO be problems. It is inevitable. Red bull, COD, and bad porn... does not trump experience.

[Ernie Nemeth]

Yes. That is the niche I fill, too. Experience trumps youth and bravado every time. I'm a wizard at my trade. Want magic? I got magic.

Some get it, and value that.

[ozmirage]

Posted by Fredkc (here)
I, like you (if I recall aright), am what I term a "left-over hippie". Couldn't find a term in use for the rest of my sympathies so I use the term "Rabid Anti-Corporate Capitalist".

Basically I am worth, whatever the market will bear. When that is not enough, I will find either a better place to do that, or find something better paying to do with my time. I work to live, I do not live to work. Pretty well sums up my over-all sympathies.

Corporations, and their resultant infection are what is wrong with what has become of the US. A very telling question I once heard about the plague of corporations:
"Tell me what in nature:
a) never dies, and
b) grows at an annual rate of 5%, forever? ... And why?"
(No, kudzu doesn't count!)

You're close to the meat...

Due to pervasive indoctrination, most people are misled to blame "capitalism" instead of the real culprits : usury and collectivism.

...
Capitalist Principles
...

CAPITALISM - An economic system in which the means of production, distribution and exchange are privately owned and operated for private profit.
- - - WEBSTER'S DICTIONARY

PRIVATE PROPERTY - "As protected from being taken for public uses, is such property as belongs absolutely to an individual, and of which he has the exclusive right of disposition. Property of a specific, fixed and tangible nature, capable of being in possession and transmitted to another, such as houses, lands, and chattels."
- - - Black's Law dictionary, sixth ed., p.1217

If you concatenate capitalism with private property, you can see the "inconvenient truth".

= = = CAPITALISM is an economic system in which the means of production, distribution and exchange are absolutely owned by INDIVIDUALS and operated for their individual profit. = = =


If you think about it, American capitalism is an endowment to be secured by government. There is no government privilege involved in absolute ownership of the means of production, distribution and exchange, and of the gain derived. Nor can capitalism be subject to an excise tax, since no government privilege is involved.

This definition does NOT include usury, gambling (underwriting), speculation, extortion, limited liability artificial persons (government privileged) or other predatory practices usually attributed to "capitalism". Coincidentally, such practices are subject to an excise tax, for they are revenue taxable privileges.

Since the introduction of national socialism via "Social Security", no one has absolutely owned a thing. The government can and will tax away anything and everything. This illustrates that no one owns private property - for any taking of private property must be compensated for (5th amendment, USCON).

From the Communist manifesto:
"In this sense, the theory of the Communists may be summed up in the single sentence: Abolition of private property."

Amendment V, US Constitution 1789
... nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

BTW - "estate" and "private property" are mutually exclusive.
That is why government can tax "real estate" but cannot tax "private property."
(Do not believe me. Read the law for yourself.)

Summed up, in the 1930s, the U.S. government went collectivist, abolishing private property. . . and thus real capitalism.
Coincidentally, banking and corporations both exist in "anti-capitalist" communist countries.

Blaming "Capitalism" for the woes created by "Collectivism" and "Usury" are examples of the success of the world's greatest propaganda ministry.

[christian]

Posted by Ernie Nemeth (here)
What happens when robots replace half the jobs in the economy? What happens when the people are not needed to do the labor?

Look back at the industrial revolution, automation. Suddenly, lots of jobs weren't necessary anymore.

What happened then? More jobs were created than were lost. Hard manual labor went back, jobs in health care and education were created. Here's the source for that.

Of course, it's more complicated than comparing that to today. But still, technological progress always offers new opportunities that are often quite unforeseen by many!

Posted by Ernie Nemeth (here)
Also, capitalism is about secrecy and misdirection. It has to be. There is no other way of capitalizing on another unless the other is in some way at a disadvantage in terms of information or contacts.

Capitalism is a free market. Free markets are about transparency. On a free market, you earn something by offering something of value to another. Customers want transparency about products, they would choose a transparent business over an intransparent one.

What we have is a corporatrocracy. It's about intransparent laws and loopholes that favor certain cronies. These cronies earn something by purposefully disadvantaging others. Certain corporations influence the government to benefit at the expense of most others, and they prefer to do that rather secretly.

Posted by shaberon (here)
I'm not sure the world has ever seen an example of free market capitalism; and the questions I have about that, would be based from that it appears to cater to selfish interests as opposed to selfless giving; and that the only "capitalists" would be those who had a lot of money to make investments expecting a return. If we had equal rights, nobody would have anything to offer except their hands; I've always seen the wealthy telling the poor to take out the trash.

Of course, wealthier people always pay poorer people for work they don't want to do themselves. I don't see anything wrong with that. Talking about equal rights, the most important in my opinion would be the right to one's own body and one's own property. The paradoxon: No government institution can ever achieve this, cause governments live off of taxation, or the confiscation of property. Hence, equal rights can only be assured voluntarily. For that, it takes spiritual and practical maturity.

A free market always caters to an environment where everybody is encouraged to satisfy the needs of others, because that's how you make money on a free market. The only way people give you money or anything on a free market is if you provide something of value to them.

That kind of giving on a free market is not necessarily selfless, as Adam Smith noted: "It is not from the benevolence of the butcher, the brewer, or the baker that we expect our dinner, but from their regard to their own interest." Selfless producing is not even necessary. It's perfectly legitimate to follow your own interest of seeking payment for your goods and services. On a free market, this ensures that both you and your customer or employer will benefit.

There are some examples of free market Capitalism in history, like in medieval Ireland, Iceland and Cospaia.

[leavesoftrees]

The end of capitalism has begun

this is an extract from Paul Mason's book Post capitalism

https://www.theguardian.com/books/20...pitalism-begun

... Once you understand the transition in this way, the need is not for a supercomputed Five Year Plan – but a project, the aim of which should be to expand those technologies, business models and behaviours that dissolve market forces, socialise knowledge, eradicate the need for work and push the economy towards abundance. I call it Project Zero – because its aims are a zero-carbon-energy system; the production of machines, products and services with zero marginal costs; and the reduction of necessary work time as close as possible to zero.

… The main contradiction today is between the possibility of free, abundant goods and information; and a system of monopolies, banks and governments trying to keep things private, scarce and commercial. Everything comes down to the struggle between the network and the hierarchy: between old forms of society moulded around capitalism and new forms of society that prefigure what comes next.

[risveglio]

Capitalism just did more for the obese in America in 24 hours than Michelle Obama and the government have done in 8 years. We don't need an end of capitalism, we need more capitalism and an end of government which would end big corporations.

Don't fear technology. This thread is starting to sound like, "But, who will pick the cotton?"

The end of capitalism has begun

This is funny. Two socialists counties that the socialist were praising just a few years ago are on the brink of total collapse.

Similar to the Republican Party, 99% of Socialists are either naive or evil.

[Baby Steps]

All giant hierarchical institutions whether governmental or privately owned tend to become self serving at the expense of the common good

they all need checks & balances and transparency.

Communism fell because large sections of the economy became value destroyers.
We had a financial crisis when Government & crony banks teamed up for short term gain at the long term expense of all of us; by laundering bad debt into triple A - sub prime mortgage debt. This also was a huge value destroyer.

Basic income depends operationally on tax income for whatever agency implements it.

In the burgeoning sharing economy, activity is transacted in an un recordable form-and un-recordable means un taxable, so the direction we are travelling in, which includes technological facilitation of greater local and individual economic self reliance will become a direct challenge to the state. It will undermine the state's ability to raise tax.

If you go to helicopter money, and hand it out, you get rampant inflation, so any basic income scheme needs to be based on tax income. If the level of basic income is too high, the indivual will become less economically active and, again, tax revenue falls.

I still believe Basic income is possible in a developed social democracy, but in the future basic provision may devolve down to smaller community units if the state shrinks and cannot raise tax.

[risveglio]

Posted by Baby Steps (here)
I still believe Basic income is possible in a developed social democracy, but in the future basic provision may devolve down to smaller community units if the state shrinks and cannot raise tax.

Depending on what you are including as "Basic income", I think you probably could find examples in history. Strong societies without the manipulation of government can and probably would have a basic income, though it wouldn't be as described. You just would be guaranteed not to end up homeless and starving, might have to do some menial labor. Churches did a great job of this past, often needing to expand into orphanages due to an ill or war struck society.

We have done a pretty good job at removing poverty over the centuries without government. Government has just made everything so expensive that even the most successful of us fear that we will not have enough to live. Just a basic (and crappy) education costs thousands / student and all they really teach is obedience to a false God.

A free society could implement a basic income but that is a different topic. I don't think it would be worth it if we have to have a "social democracy", isn't that pretty much what we have now and it has only slowed down progress.

[Dennis Leahy]

Posted by risveglio (here)

Posted by Baby Steps (here)
I still believe Basic income is possible in a developed social democracy, but in the future basic provision may devolve down to smaller community units if the state shrinks and cannot raise tax.

Depending on what you are including as "Basic income", I think you probably could find examples in history. Strong societies without the manipulation of government can and probably would have a basic income, though it wouldn't be as described. You just would be guaranteed not to end up homeless and starving, might have to do some menial labor. Churches did a great job of this past, often needing to expand into orphanages due to an ill or war struck society.

We have done a pretty good job at removing poverty over the centuries without government. Government has just made everything so expensive that even the most successful of us fear that we will not have enough to live. Just a basic (and crappy) education costs thousands / student and all they really teach is obedience to a false God.

A free society could implement a basic income but that is a different topic. I don't think it would be worth it if we have to have a "social democracy", isn't that pretty much what we have now and it has only slowed down progress.

hahahahah No, the USA does not have "social democracy" now. We have nothing even resembling democracy in the US, and 2016 should be the year where most people finally figure that out (due to overt election fraud and the clown car candidates chosen for us to choose between.) The "social"/socialist aspects of US society - which, by the way, are not paid for by government but are paid for by the people (taxes) - have eroded greatly, and the criminals in office have even sold off public assets (roads, bridges, ports, etc.)

I guess Carlin's "it's a big club, and you ain't in it!" even applies to small-time capitalists who want the advantages afforded to the anarcho-capitalists at the top of the pyramid. I'm not sure if the correct or most accurate term to describe the actual form of current US government is anarcho-capitalism, corporatocracy, kleptocracy, oligarchy, or fascism - but the one thing it is not is any flavor of democracy. [An aside: I think it is funny when those who fear democracy describe it as "mob rule", but these same people accept oligarchy, a small mob that will never consider your interests. When the "mob" - in theory - expands to include everyone (democracy), it become frightening?]

But, back to the subject of a basic income, where does the money come from is my key question. A 'cut' of arms/munitions sales? Oil, gas, and other mineral leases? Timber extraction permits? Selling off US national monuments? Cocaine and heroin sales profits? I mean, other than monies collected in taxes, what does the US federal government actually have to sell? Where would they get enough money for a basic income without taxation? If 300 million checks for $20K are written, that's $6,000,000,000,000.00 per year. (6 trillion) I think only about 1 trillion gets collected in the US per year in taxes now, and as we know, the US military gets about 2/3rds of that money.

The same greed and power-driven people who currently own/control the USA will never look out for the interests of the other 99.9% of the population that they financially rose above. It is ridiculously ignorant to believe that this 'Mob' would remain "in charge", and that they would somehow implement a basic income and/or other strategies to help others. (Insert Ray Kroc hose/drowning quote here.)

[TargeT]

Posted by Dennis Leahy (here)
I think only about 1 trillion gets collected in the US per year in taxes now, and as we know, the US military gets about 2/3rds of that money.

Federal Taxes Set Record in FY 2015 with $3,248,723,000,000 collected.

Hasn't been in the 1tril range since the '80s

Posted by Dennis Leahy (here)
The same greed and power-driven people who currently own/control the USA will never look out for the interests of the other 99.9% of the population that they financially rose above. It is ridiculously ignorant to believe that this 'Mob' would remain "in charge", and that they would somehow implement a basic income and/or other strategies to help others. (Insert Ray Kroc hose/drowning quote here.)

Actually, from my experience the BEST way to ruin a people and dominate an area is very simple: give them free money (aka basic income)

Look at what it did to the native american populations in the lower 48.. they are a great long term example, for a shorter term example look at what is happening to the native population of Alaska.. both were given free money and free land & both turned to substance abuse & physical/sexual abuse at high rates.


I think "basic income" would be a very attractive population control methodology based on what I have experienced from peoples receiving "free money".

[Baby Steps]

My angle is a bit different. Set it at quite a low level, but increase marginal tax rates above that level.
It would not be a way of providing new life choices to people.
It would simply be a way of cutting out all the entitlement bureaucracy , so people would never lack the very basics.

We are having in the UK a boom in food banks. This has been caused by a policy of benefit sanctioning that is far more draconian than went before. Its so sad to realise that all the person-hours involved in ADMINISTERING the sanctioning and disbursements, the entitlement assessments and interviews - cost more than just handing over the money.

So I am suggesting that the huge governmental entitlements programs including state pensions can be rolled into one simple payment.
It has the potential to alleviate alot of suffering.

[TargeT]

Posted by Baby Steps (here)
It has the potential to alleviate alot of suffering.

From my experience the worst suffering (mental, though IMO all "suffering" is mental & based on perspective) is caused when humans have no resistance to push against.

If you make things too easy, people make bad decisions; I don't know that there is any level of income that wouldn't foster this at some level, the US has this & it is abused regularly and in a lot of cases encourages people to stay "on the roll" instead of getting off it.

I don't think encouraging people to be lazy is the right idea.

I'd rather see something like "beautification squads".. I do this with my kids.. if they want money I have a running list of common things that always " need done" and a value next to it. My kids can decide to, or decide not to do these extra things.. they get no "allowance" (no free money) and have chores that we teach "are a part of living" (ie: keeping your room clean, taking care of animals, etc.. ) so if they want to do anything above and beyond they have the option.

Now, so far as I can tell this hasn't altered the decision making process on money expenditure for the younger ones, but the pre-teens and teens get it & start to budget (depending on personality, my son is much better than my pre-teen daughter currently) & make more thoughtful decisions with their money (it's not all candy and toys like it is for the 9 year old.. haha).

These may be anecdotal, but I value real life experience over thought experiments any day.