Universal Basic Income is not Socialism

[Lost in Translation]

6 minutes ago, ralis said:

 

Not in the least since I posited several scenarios in the form of a question which is not an accusation. Care to define the regulations?

 

Here is one example from my home state of California.

 

Quote

Who likes state’s plan to keep more water for fish in California rivers? Practically nobody
BY DALE KASLER

November 29, 2016 12:25 PM

California regulators say their sweeping proposal to devote more flows from the state’s major rivers to fish and wildlife is an attempt to balance competing interests for a scarce resource.

So far, all they’ve done is get practically everyone mad at them.

Opponents of the plan came out in force Tuesday, in the first of a series of hearings before the State Water Resources Control Board on the future of the San Joaquin River and its tributaries. Environmentalists said the plan doesn’t do enough for California’s beleaguered fish populations, while farmers and elected officials said the changes would dry up the San Joaquin Valley’s already troubled economy.

“We should not be punished for staying in agriculture,” said Diedre Kelsey, a Merced County supervisor. “It’s our economy. ... It funds our schools, it funds our community.” She and others said the drought has already taken a toll on the valley.

The board is charged with overseeing the quality of the water that flows through the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta, the fragile estuary that is the hub of California’s elaborate water delivery system. The board’s proposal, unveiled in September, would let more water flow unimpeded through the Delta and out to the Pacific Ocean. That would leave less water available to be pumped from the south Delta to farms in the arid San Joaquin Valley and homes in Southern California.

Along with the San Joaquin River, the board is planning to reallocate flows from the Sacramento River and its tributaries, with the same goal in mind: to shore up the Delta’s ecosystems. Decisions aren’t expected until next summer.

While farmers complained about losing water to fish, environmentalists said the additional supplies won’t be enough to protect salmon, steelhead and other fish species whose populations have fallen dramatically over the years.

“It isn’t sufficient,” said policy advocate Kyle Jones of Sierra Club California. He urged the board to adopt “more protective standards that are backed by the science.”

Board officials say a rewrite of the rules governing the San Joaquin River is long overdue. Standards haven’t been updated in two decades, and on average just 20 percent of the San Joaquin’s flow reaches the Pacific unimpeded during critical months when fish are migrating. Sometimes, the unimpeded flow is as low as 5 percent, board officials said.

The board says the unimpeded flow level should be raised to anywhere between 30 percent and 50 percent. Along with proposed changes in the Sacramento Valley watershed, hundreds of thousands of additional acre-feet of water could be left in the rivers for wildlife, subtracting supplies available to farms and cities.

“No one will be happy with the number. It’ll be too little for some, and too much for others,” said Les Grober, the board’s deputy director. “But it’s what we’ve got to do.”

The board said leaving more water in the San Joaquin watershed could translate into a $64 million loss to the region’s economy. Farm groups called that estimate too low.

The plan creates other complications. Board staff members said farmers would pump more groundwater to make up for lost surface water supplies, a scenario that collides with a 2014 state law designed to curb excessive groundwater pumping.

Besides taking water from agriculture, the plan also could affect San Francisco and other cities that rely on the San Joaquin and its tributaries.

 

In a nutshell, California is a in a drought and the farmers in the central valley are struggling to survive. While this is ongoing millions of gallons of water are being washed out to the Pacific ocean to maintain the habitat of the Delta Smelt fish. The California regulators clearly value the lives of this fish over the well being of their constituents. To make matters worse, the farmers are not allowed to pump sufficient ground water to grow their crops due to a second regulation that controls ground water pumping. So farmers are struggling to grow food and consumers are struggling as food availability is less and costs go up.

 

Just to  be clear, I am not saying screw the environment or let nature burn. I am saying that the interests of human beings must come first in a crisis, and this clearly is a crisis.

 

https://www.sacbee.com/news/state/california/water-and-drought/article117741143.html

 

[Marblehead]

California is a bad example.  That state is all screwed up.

 

[Lost in Translation]

2 minutes ago, Marblehead said:

California is a bad example.  That state is all screwed up.

 

California is an excellent example. It's what every other state will become if you are not careful.

[ralis]

24 minutes ago, Lost in Translation said:

 

Here is one example from my home state of California.

 

 

In a nutshell, California is a in a drought and the farmers in the central valley are struggling to survive. While this is ongoing millions of gallons of water are being washed out to the Pacific ocean to maintain the habitat of the Delta Smelt fish. The California regulators clearly value the lives of this fish over the well being of their constituents. To make matters worse, the farmers are not allowed to pump sufficient ground water to grow their crops due to a second regulation that controls ground water pumping. So farmers are struggling to grow food and consumers are struggling as food availability is less and costs go up.

 

Just to  be clear, I am not saying screw the environment or let nature burn. I am saying that the interests of human beings must come first in a crisis, and this clearly is a crisis.

 

https://www.sacbee.com/news/state/california/water-and-drought/article117741143.html

 

 

 

Humans must come first? Given the complexity of the biosphere, that is a dangerous proposition. 

[Lost in Translation]

1 minute ago, ralis said:

Humans must come first? Given the complexity of the biosphere, that is a dangerous proposition. 

 

Another straw man! I am not saying screw the environment, and even if I was then so what? If we're dumb enough to destroy our own environment and we suffer or die then we get what we deserve. What I am saying is let humanity use its resources to solve our problems. Don't handcuff us. But we've gone off topic. If you want to discuss biosphere issues then make a new topic.

[ralis]

17 minutes ago, Lost in Translation said:

 

Another straw man! I am not saying screw the environment, and even if I was then so what? If we're dumb enough to destroy our own environment and we suffer or die then we get what we deserve. What I am saying is let humanity use its resources to solve our problems. Don't handcuff us. But we've gone off topic. If you want to discuss biosphere issues then make a new topic.

 

If you want to discuss then I will gladly do so. But, your blame that I am positing fallacious arguments will result in being put on ignore. Again, I merely asked a question and followed with a general statement which is not a criticism in general of you point.

Edited July 19, 2018 by ralis

[ralis]

23 minutes ago, Lost in Translation said:

 

Another straw man! I am not saying screw the environment, and even if I was then so what? If we're dumb enough to destroy our own environment and we suffer or die then we get what we deserve. What I am saying is let humanity use its resources to solve our problems. Don't handcuff us. But we've gone off topic. If you want to discuss biosphere issues then make a new topic.

 

I do appreciate your point regarding the drought situation in California and the Delta Smelt Fish.

[Michael Sternbach]

During the Industrial Revolution, technological progress was advertised as decreasing people's working hours. It didn't. Instead, they ended up working more!

 

It would be great if, after all, technology allowed us to cut down  more on repetitious jobs that can be taken over by machines. So that people are free to spend more of their alloted time on earth for creative endeavours, including non-profit ones - without having to struggle for survival. Making this a happier planet, overall.

 

Yes, there will be challenges. As there are challenges now. See the bigger picture.

[Lost in Translation]

24 minutes ago, ralis said:

I do appreciate your point regarding the drought situation in California and the Delta Smelt Fish.

 

Thank you. I may have misinterpreted your questions as back hand assertions. My apologies if I offended.

[Michael Sternbach]

Talking about the drought issue people have in SoCal, I wonder what keeps them from resorting to the supplies that Diamond Valley Lake provides? It was created as a reservoir for situations like this, in my understanding.

 

Just leave enough for the fish, and also for the awesome wild flowers that are growing on its shore.

 

Edited July 20, 2018 by Michael Sternbach

[zerostao]

I like the way threads on TDB flow like a river, sometimes wild, this thread, which began discussing a monthly stipend, then it was suggested that is a form of rationing, another ripple and here we're talking about rationing water like they do in California. Challenges ahead indeed. Watch out for that waterfall ahead. Where I'm at the concern is a flood not lack of water. Jerry Brown has introduced "permanent" restrictions, correct? There is no permanent, especially in politics, or anything. Except for the Eternal Dao. Changes ahead, indeed.

[Lost in Translation]

I don't think it's about trickle down economics or any other economic theory. Essentially it's about the role of government. What is the role of government? One answer could be "anything it wants to do". That's fine, but that's a rather extreme view of government. Another answer could be "Securing the public welfare". OK, that's a better answer. The next question is to define public welfare. Some may see basic income as part of welfare, others may not. Why? Well, income is something that a person can receive without the aid of government. What about public defense? Individuals could defend themselves. That would be a "wild west" kind of society but it could happen. Generally speaking though people can't defend themselves so that role falls upon the government.

 

This is the kind of analysis that a people should perform. As a society we need to know what functions are best suited for which levels of society. Defense against foreign aggression? That's a national level issue. Protection against criminals who cross state lines? Also national. Protection against local criminals? That's a state issue. International commerce? Again, national. The local bakery? That's a county or even a city issue. Earning a living? I dare say that's an individual or family affair.

 

Not everything needs to be a national issue. Basic income is one of those issues that is best handled locally. If a local government wants to implement this then fine, but expect a massive influx of low earners and a corresponding outflux of high earners. Soon the local government will become broke and ask for state of national support. When that happens what do we do? I would hope we do nothing. If people vote for unsustainable policies then they need to feel the consequences of their choices. If I am wrong and it works out roses, then let them receive the rewards. I'm not against people. I want them to succeed. I just don't want the government holding a gun to my head to force me to co-sign for their loan.

[joeblast]

8 hours ago, Earl Grey said:

I agree UBI does not have to be a nationwide thing

yeah, because it would be unconstitutional

[Marblehead]

37 minutes ago, joeblast said:

yeah, because it would be unconstitutional

We could make it constitutional.

 

[Marblehead]

Yeah, I speak as an American.  I can't speak only of California as it has been way too long since I was there.  That was back in the late 1970s.  Many things have changed in California since then.

 

And true, nations that are Social-Democracies already have the laws that allow them to operate according to your specifications.  I think that they might be ruining their systems though by allowing so many migrants in where there is no employment for them.  That will drain and then ruin the system.  If they can find work for them then maybe not a problem.

 

 

 

 

[rene]

Marblehead - agree.

 

EarlGrey - right. Not only are there constitutional issues, most people - and perhaps most Bums -  over the age of 40 grew up with the idea of self-responsibility. Prior to the 70's - there was no widespread entitlement programs. Yes, welfare & socia security existed before then - but it was nowhere near the size and scope it is today. There was no widespread sense of entitlement, like there is now. It was the mindset we grew up with that even having to buy something on credit - other than a mortgage - was a sign of inadequacy. There were always the poor - but we took care of them through our churches and local civic organizations. Today, of course, it is an entirely different landscape. Please know that we are not anti-people, or are uncaring or ungiving. It's primarily a resistance to expanding the size of the government teat - the cradle to grave nanny state other countries have had in place for a very long time - that is something Americans are not comfortable with.  The younger Americans, though, who have been raised in the left-leaning public education system through the last 40 years, are more and I would say very receptive to a big government that will meet all their needs - whether they work for their own basic survival and needs, or not.

 

I swore I would stay out of this and similar threads, coming back only to thank ralis for his answer to my earlier question of "What is your solution, ralis".  So - along with the above, this post is my thanks to him in advance, should he eventually reply.

 

Stay gentle with each other folks; we're all on the same compassionate side.

Peace out. (-:

 

 

 

Edited July 20, 2018 by rene

[Marblehead]

3 minutes ago, Earl Grey said:

Silicon Valley has an interest in immigration policy due to a lot of its talent being from places like India and Pakistan.

 

 

But remember, bringing in immigrants who will work for less than the standard US cost of living deflate the wages of everyone.  This is the same thing as making the American worker of less value.

 

I could understand if there was a shortage of American workers with the skills but we know this is not the case.

 

 

[Marblehead]

1 hour ago, Marblehead said:

We could make it constitutional.

 

I wasn't serious there folks.  I'm a conservative, remember.

 

[joeblast]

2 hours ago, Marblehead said:

We could make it constitutional.

 

lol...

 

if it is odious to the bill of rights, it is automatically null and void.

 

I agree though, "we could make it 'constitutional'" by adding in yet another odious bit to the corporate bylaws that masquerade as our Constitution,

 

but like everything from the acts of 1871 onward.....none of those "amendments" were made to The Constitution For These United States of America

[Aetherous]

Minimum wage isn't Constitutional.

[joeblast]

8 minutes ago, Aetherous said:

Minimum wage isn't Constitutional.

a Federal minimum wage, correct

[idquest]

Not sure how it is in the USA, but in Canada there is pretty much guaranteed income around $1,000 Canadian. Which is not a lot by any measure. Now, to distribute this $1,000 to those who need it, there is an army of bureaucrats whose job is to fill out endless forms and maintain 'social' files on those in need. What a UBI in fact does, it eliminates a bunch of federal and provincial (state)  bureaucrats and streamlines the distribution system.

 

Of course, if implemented there will be some abuses of the system. But have you given a thought of how much just one government employee costs? With all their benefits and huge pension plans? I'd say from purely practical POV, the UBI should be a good thing.

[redcairo]

On 7/19/2018 at 12:49 PM, Aetherous said:

But I think it's possible that working people could maintain their full pay while having UBI in the society.

 

Sure. Everyone LOVES the idea of working for a living while others are paid not to. :-) Pretty sure we've tested that theory already.

 

On 7/19/2018 at 12:49 PM, Aetherous said:

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.

 

Now think carefully: as our culture advances toward and into AI, our culture also advances into having far fewer children.

 

But we are pressed, "No you must import tons of people from places that hate you! And tons of people that want a different government and liberties than your country has and can vote! Because you need the uncontrolled number of children they breed!"

 

Well MAYBE nature in its interesting evolutionary and "synchronicity" wisdom, arranged LOWER BIRTH RATE at the same time that the future would have LESS WORK to be done. See how that all works out?

 

But it doesn't work out at all if we import endless millions who can barely do the most rudimentary jobs even now, and will breed exponentially more children.

If a company doesn't have enough work or creative options for more than 100 people, IT DOES NOT BRING THEM IN. I don't see why it should be greatly different for a country.

 

Humor: I never thought of this connection before writing this post. So if I'm a cretin it's developed in the last 3 minutes.

 

RC

 

 

 

 

[Aetherous]

1 hour ago, redcairo said:

Everyone LOVES the idea of working for a living while others are paid not to.

 

Let's put this into modern day realistic terms, where the living wage equivalent (let's be generous and say that's $15 an hour for 40 hours per week) would be the UBI.

Are you saying you'd quit your $48,642/year job (I don't know what you make, this is the 2016 average wage for the US), to receive the living wage equivalent UBI ($31,200) for doing nothing?

That would be a decision to lose $17,442 worth of gross income per year. At least personally, I wouldn't want to scrape by like that.

Forgetting these calculations which I just made up...the actual UBI would probably be even less impressive.

[Aetherous]

2 hours ago, redcairo said:

Now think carefully: as our culture advances toward and into AI, our culture also advances into having far fewer children.

 

But we are pressed, "No you must import tons of people from places that hate you! And tons of people that want a different government and liberties than your country has and can vote! Because you need the uncontrolled number of children they breed!"

 

Well MAYBE nature in its interesting evolutionary and "synchronicity" wisdom, arranged LOWER BIRTH RATE at the same time that the future would have LESS WORK to be done. See how that all works out?

 

This doesn't make sense...immigrants breed uncontrollably, but nature in its wisdom is lowering the birth rates...but only of quality citizens? And we're pressed by others to let immigrants in with their excessive breeding, despite going toward automation and needing less workers?

I don't think a decreased birth rate is the solution to the automation problem.