Aetherous

Well, I'm hoping someone who actually knows what they're talking about on this issue will jump in here. I've read just a few articles on it and only think the idea has potential. I posted this topic mostly to learn more about it. I've attempted to show how it's possible that UBI won't come from workers, because money doesn't simply come from work, and because money does exist outside of worker's pockets. I believe there are many potential ways it could work, which wouldn't mess with taxpayers at all, nor implement socialism or communism. I actually think UBI would benefit a mostly free market.

I'm not sure we're understanding each other. If the UBI increased with cost of living, the food would still be just as affordable. Just like how meals used to cost 50 cents, and today they cost $10. We can still afford the food easily.

If you look back, you'll see I'm not saying anything about taking money from people who work.

Definitely.

Yes, this is the primary argument against (my version of) demand-side economics...that businesses will do this for one reason or another, so implementing any demand increasing policies is seen as disastrous. If the UBI of all citizens increases in response to the cost of living, does it matter whether the price is $0.50 for a plate of food or $500? That's just a number. In the past, 50 cents for a meal was normal. Today it's around $10 for a meal being normal in most areas. What matters is: can most people in the society afford it? With UBI increasing in response to inflation, they could.

Automation that consumers find to be valuable.

This is the major problem with my kind of perspective on economics ("demand side")...more money in the markets causes inflation. But I think if UBI were simply adjusted for inflation, it could work and inflation wouldn't have a bad effect. Not that I really know what I'm talking about.

This is the money = work argument. I'm not sure that's how money actually functions, because more work =/= more money. Here's a real world example: Look at let's say a janitor making $10 an hour working 60 hours a week. They're working more than a massage therapist who makes $60 an hour and works 10 hours a week...but the amount of money is the same. Thinking about this requires an understanding of where money comes from in the first place. What if those jobs suddenly became fully automated?

It seems like Earl Grey's first link, here, shows another option.

Maybe. I'm definitely not an expert on the subject, and just think of it as an interesting idea to consider. But I think it's possible that working people could maintain their full pay while having UBI in the society. They might even end up earning more, due to the success of the businesses they work for. One argument in favor of UBI is that our societies are progressing toward automation done by machines, so theoretically there will be less and less work for people to do. The ones who adapt will find or create work...survival of the fittest...but there are those who won't, and they'll end up living in poverty. The consequences of people living below the poverty level, coming from an economic perspective, is that businesses have less demand. That means less profit...which can usually lead to decreased wages, less jobs at the business, etc. Perhaps without UBI, our economy and the status of the working person is actually worse off.

If you open up an incognito window in Chrome and go to the link, it usually bypasses that ad.

https://www.quora.com/Is-basic-income-a-form-of-socialism

Next empire: HAWAII.

I think in the absence of clear guidance, the best thing one can do with the text is to see which sentences make sense. Only consider those, and don't consider the sentences that aren't clear. It'd be good to comb through the book like this, and make a list of the clear parts. (If it requires any additional guessing, or interjecting what we think we know, it's not really a clear sentence.)

Pretty sure I know what you're hinting at, but it'd be cool if you spelled it out for everyone here.

Yes, there are mind only MCO methods that can cultivate lots of qi.

This is a thread for discussion of the Deep State. Here's a well regarded book on the subject: https://www.amazon.com/National-Security-Government-Michael-Glennon/dp/0190663995/

Yes it can. Yes it can.

Thanks. I think there are a lot of little hints hidden in there that point us away from the incorrect practice and toward the right practice. They don't exercise enough, and don't have such a tightly regulated diet. Plus, they have good constitutions (aren't the emaciated type). I haven't found a spiritual method that waves a magic wand and fully turns everything into perfection. Often times, spiritual work takes a priority for people, so exercise and diet and basically just a healthy lifestyle takes a back seat...that's why, imo.

Taoist Texts, what do you think about this question? I know you've spoke in the past about books containing all that the practitioner needs...have you seen this method fully described in your readings?

I think it's referring to part of a method that's taught by a teacher in the gold flower tradition, and it requires the teaching on how to practice it correctly in order to understand what the words mean.

I think there are ways to get around it somewhat...but unfortunately it's hard to avoid money/society completely. For instance, we can almost avoid it by already owning a plot of land way out in the middle of nowhere, hunting and growing food...but I think we still have taxes on that land. I don't see how anyone could avoid it who uses the internet.

I don't know what Daoists think about money. Some modern Daoists learn feng shui, and I think "wealth" is one of the 9 palaces, so that makes me guess they are concerned with it. Pretty sure they also charge and accept money for various things. As for what I think...I view money as our primary means of survival in civilized society. Prior to civilization, we depended on some tools like knives, and our knowledge such as how to build fires. We hunted and gathered our food. We had our means of survival and it was easy. Later on, we cultivated through agriculture and farming, although that began to get tied in with various forms of money...still, we were largely dependent on working with the natural world for our survival. In our societies today, building fire is just to make s'mores. We don't hunt and thereby survive. It's a sport, or provides a little bit of extra meat, but not enough to live on. We don't gather...unless we're making blueberry pie, or going to the farmers market. We don't farm for the most part, unless we grow a few extra things. Really, we can't depend on ourselves alone for our survival these days without enormous effort. Society makes us more interwoven. Now that we're in civilization, what determines everything for us is money. Without any of it, we die. With some of it, we survive. With more of it, we thrive. So my perspective is: do you want to die? Do you want to merely survive? Or do you want to thrive? Do you want to live in a house, or be homeless? Do you want to drive a car across town, or walk? Do you want to afford three meals a day, or dumpster dive? Our personal ethics will determine what we do with our money beyond that. Some might feel like having money while others don't is bad. But I think that if you use your money to help others, it's better to have than to not. If you're barely surviving, yourself, your ability to help others is extremely limited.

So...we should all really be cultivating our Sudoku.