Universal Basic Income is not Socialism

[Aetherous]

Thoughts?

[rene]

Of course it is. It's taking working people's money to give to someone who didn't have to work for it.

[Aetherous]

Quote

Of course it is. 

 

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

Edited July 19, 2018 by Aetherous

[rene]

1 minute ago, Earl Grey said:

It totally depends on implementation. If we go the Silicon Valley approach that has been talked about since 2016, then it's more of a Feudalistic kind of scenario where you exist at a level if subsistence that makes it harder to have mobility, socially, and financially due to the structure they envision. 

just fyi - your link worked, but an ad to subscribe quickly popped up, blocking the article. couldnt read it.

 

[Aetherous]

Just now, rene said:

just fyi - your link worked, but an ad to subscribe quickly popped up, blocking the article. couldnt read it.

 

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

[rene]

3 minutes ago, Aetherous said:

 

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

 

I stand corrected. From that link:

A basic income is concerned with the distribution of income whereas socialism is a system of organizing the ownership, production and allocation of goods and services.

Socialism is defined as an economic system based on social ownership and operation of the means of producing wealth. This is a distinct concept from a basic income, which does not require social ownership of capital assets.

[rene]

However it's structured, whatever it's called - it's still taking working people's money to give to someone who didn't have to work for it.

[Aetherous]

1 minute ago, rene said:

However it's structured, whatever it's called - it's still taking working people's money to give to someone who didn't have to work for it.

 

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.

[joeblast]

1 hour ago, Aetherous said:

Thoughts?

I think UBI should be eliminated, firstly and foremostly, for the central banking cartels who operate indistinguishably from a criminal racket - because they have a de facto "Oligarch UBI" just by virtue of their ancestors having swindled previous populations and having allowed these shysters to have created the concept of a "central bank" to begin with.

 

"The best way to rob a bank is to own the bank."

 

if that's eliminated and the people of the world didnt have such a massive skim off the fruits of their labor...

 

....then hell, a "minimum wage" job would probably actually be something one could live off of.

 

But the whole notion that it doesnt directly correspond to an "ism" is just meal mouthing the matter.  The old and infirm already have things like SSDI (a lot of which is pure abuse of the program) and everyone else can get up off their asses and support themselves.

 

We're still nowhere near that star trek level of tech that will provide the star trek level of social services and automatic food replication, etc.

 

So long as us plebes still pay for energy, this will never change.  Energy has to be free before we can ever think about anything beyond energy being "free."

 

 

55 minutes ago, rene said:

just fyi - your link worked, but an ad to subscribe quickly popped up, blocking the article. couldnt read it.

 

if you dont wanna let them make money off of your clicks, then they figure you are probably past propagandizing, for the most part

Edited July 19, 2018 by joeblast

[rene]

1 minute ago, Aetherous said:

 

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. ...

 

Small thing though -

 

All gov programs are funded through taxes on working people. Costs of private programs are passed to the businesses' consumers and clients..in either higher costs to do business or increased product prices - services and products that are purchased by people who work. Either by them directly, or via their taxes for products provided to the non-working by the govt.

[Aetherous]

14 minutes ago, rene said:

All gov programs are funded through taxes on working people.

 

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

[joeblast]

6 minutes ago, Aetherous said:

 

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

lol, we already travel on "the king's roads"

 

if one disagrees, pehaps one has never met one of the kings henchmen...err....I mean, law enforcement....and not had a permission slip from the king saying you've paid the king to use his roads and operate his motor vehicles.

[rene]

46 minutes ago, Aetherous said:

 

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

 

Again - regardless of the path the money takes (whether by way of taxes, increased fees, higher product prices) - it originates from the people who work for it, and given to the people who dont work for it.

 

An exception to that ^^ would be monies derived from natural resources, oil extraction, etc. Otherwise - it's coming out of MY (and every other worker's) pocket one way or another.

[Lost in Translation]

2 hours ago, Aetherous said:

Thoughts?

 

Who's gonna pay for it?

[Marblehead]

Once upon a time before man became civilized, if a man worked he likely lived well and those who didn't work died off.

 

[Lost in Translation]

Let's get real here.

 

Imagine that there is no money, since money is too abstract for many people. Instead we have a pure barter system and every month the government gives you three chickens, two dozen eggs, ten loaves of bread and five gallons of beer.

 

Who raises the chickens?

Who grows the grain to make bread and beer?

Who bakes the bread?

Who brews the beer?

[Marblehead]

It all appears by magic.

 

[Aetherous]

17 minutes ago, rene said:

[money] originates from the people who work for it, and given to the people who dont work for it.

 

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.

 

6 minutes ago, Lost in Translation said:

Let's get real here.

 

Imagine that there is no money, since money is too abstract for many people. Instead we have a pure barter system and every month the government gives you three chickens, two dozen eggs, ten loaves of bread and five gallons of beer.

 

Who raises the chickens?

Who grows the grain to make bread and beer?

Who bakes the bread?

Who brews the beer?

 

What if those jobs suddenly became fully automated?

[Lost in Translation]

Exactly!

 

Governments don't produce stuff. Governments take stuff. Everytime the government gives money it takes that money from someone who works. Eventually 50%+ of the workforce reaches the point where they receive more from the government than they give. At that point the government begins printing money. This is called quantitative easing and it's exactly what happened in 2007-11. This money magically appears out of nowhere. At first it's great, then the economy adjusts to the increased amount of money and objects begin to cost more. This is called inflation. This is the reason that a movie used to cost $6.00 in 1990 and now costs $15.00. This is the reason why a car used to cost $4,500 in 1970 and now costs $30k.

 

A certain level of inflation is necessary to account for population growth and to give the economy liquidity. Too much is disastrous. Look at Venezuela! They need barrels of cash to buy stuff - literally! In fact, they have given up on money and resorted to barter 'cause no matter how hard the government tries they cannot magically produce more chickens or bread.

[rene]

Just now, Aetherous said:

 

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 doesn't matter what the 'value' of each person's job is, rate of pay, or anything else.

Money earned by both the janitor and the massage therapist will be taxed - and those tax-monies will be given to those who do not work for it.

 

[Lost in Translation]

5 minutes ago, Aetherous said:

What if those jobs suddenly became fully automated?

 

This is a problem. A society can only absorb change so fast. If the change is too fast then people suffer. As a society we need to understand this.

 

As regards automation, a major factor in the push towards automation is the increasing minimum wage.

[Aetherous]

2 minutes ago, Lost in Translation said:

At first it's great, then the economy adjusts to the increased amount of money and objects begin to cost more. This is called inflation.

 

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.

[rene]

Just now, Aetherous said:

 

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.

 

Exactly where do you think the money for UBI is going to come from - if not taxpayers pockets?

[joeblast]

4 minutes ago, Aetherous said:

 

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.

It depends which markets you're talking about, because all that money printed and given to fraudsters in 2008 has by and large not made it to Main St just yet.

 

And that's also not addressing the root bastardization of our debt based currency.  Federal Reserve Notes are marked for death - one way or another.

[Aetherous]

4 minutes ago, rene said:

Exactly where do you think the money for UBI is going to come from - if not taxpayers pockets?

 

Automation that consumers find to be valuable.