Last week at the Nexus Conference I was on a panel with Doug Casey debating Universal Basic Income (UBI) with Flip Flipkowski and Ellen Brown, the President of the Public Banking Institute.
I have never actually looked into UBI much and assumed it was just a passing, bizarre fad. But it appears to be gaining a lot of traction with people who like to virtue signal and don’t understand economics.
You really just have to watch it for yourself to see and believe just how uninformed their positions are.
Ellen Brown, in particular, could barely raise an argument and turned aside most of my evidence and analysis on why it would be a disaster with comments like, “I don’t believe that” and “I disagree”... but saying nothing more as to why she disagreed.
To summarize my view, printing up massive amounts of money in order to give it to everyone in society would:
- Destroy the value of the currency almost immediately, and it would certainly lead into hyperinflation quite quickly
- Neither incentivize people to be productive nor motivate them to improve themselves, leading to an even worse off economy and a society full of unproductive, unskilled, lazy people.
This is fairly obvious to anyone who even has the most basic understanding of money, economics and human psychology.
But, claiming to have a few “studies” that show otherwise, they countered that people would be more productive if they were all just given enough money to live… and that printing up money does not devalue the currency.
When Doug and I brought up examples pf countries who had hyperinflated their currencies by printing too much, of which there are hundreds of examples, including Zimbabwe and Venezuela, most recently, these two claimed that it was other factors that caused the currencies to become worthless.
Aside from that, when I pressured them on how her idea of raising funds to pay for it all using a sales tax was theft and immoral she claimed it wasn’t a “tax”, it was “just trimming.”
It’d be laughable how uninformed and confused their ideas and logic are if it weren’t gaining so much wide appeal amongst the public who, in general, never has a problem with getting “free money.”
Again, you really have to see it to believe it. Here is the entire debate:
When pressured on any other way of moving forward, both Flip and Ellen had only one thing to say about why we need UBI: “Robots.”
According to them, robots will soon take all of our jobs and we’ll all be left starving.
I pointed out to Ellen that I’d always have a job for her, even if it is just polishing my shoes, finishing with, “At least then you’d finally do something productive with your life.”
It was a bit mean in retrospect, and as we walked out, she muttered to me, “I hate you.”
To which, both Doug and I responded that we didn’t “hate” them, we just think their ideas are uninformed and dangerous.
If this is the level of debate on the topic and it gains ground with the public and becomes a reality, then The Dollar Vigilante’s theme of preparing for the demise of the US dollar will be sped up dramatically… and we are already expecting it to happen in the next few years.
If you want to learn how to prepare for the collapse check out this free webinar with Max Wright. Max gives his outlook on how the collapse will occur and how you can prepare and even profit from it.
It will happen in the next few years or really any day now. And, if these socialists get their way it will occur even faster and be even more destructive than we can imagine.
I would argue that Universal Basic Income doesn't have to be based on force/coercion/theft. There are ways to accomplish the goal without having the state be the ones handling it.
If the issue/question is "how do we create a universal income/make sure everyone's basic needs are met?" and you immediately assume this could only be done via government, that's no different than a statist asking you who would build the roads without government. Anything that government can do, we can do better voluntarily, including UBI.
@dantheman wrote an excellent series on Universal Basic Income last year, that is well worth the read for anyone interested in economics, philosophy, and bettering the world. As you know, Dan is a staunch anarchist, and his approach to this issue doesn't break from that philosophy.
Unfortunately Dan's series wasn't packaged neatly into a flashy video and will likely not get much exposure. Have to admit, did not read all of it, so the links are handy to catch up later on.
Sad but true. He didn't use any ad hominem attacks, didn't make a video, and didn't try to do anything except lay the concepts out succinctly and clearly. One would hope that Steemit will be the place where that kind of content flourishes, and to some extent it does.
I wonder how he'd feel about someone summarizing his series and making it into a short video (or a couple short videos. @dan? I'd be happy to take up that mission :-)
@donchate, I'd highly recommend a read/re-read, it was some of the best stuff I've read since joining Steemit honestly.
Agreed, some of the best stuff out there. Do the vid!
Definitely needed. I think it's safe to say this will be done at some point.
As a supporter of some versions of "UBI" and opponent of most, I'd be very interested in a video making the ideas more vivid.
I remember reading Dans posts some time ago, but the amount of necessary semantic and theoretical preconditions makes most posts such as these a very lenghty and often confusing read.
Having some videos to accompany them would be of great help for a lot of people, including myself.
(You can skip the parts strawmanning capitalists vs socialists though, because that clearly doesn't help anyone)
Ya, they were definitely very in-depth and the sort of thing that the average person just tilts their head at in confusion, then closes and walks away. I'll add a video version of the series to my to-do list :-)
Cuba is a failed experiment of this basic income stuff, money come from someone and they will ask you for to do something at the end of the road if you want to mantain your "free" money (there is NOTHING FREE in this world, believe me)... for me, basic income is the first step on the way to dictadure ...
Theories are not reality sadly!
Cuba is a whole lot of things, you can't just say that UBI can't work because an authoritarian government implemented it and their version didn't work.
Between crypto-currencies (especially things like Steem, Grantcoin, and Faircoin), automation of manufacturing & food production, and the other technological advances opening up before us, there are SO many possibilities that are right on our doorstep that would have been truly impossible a decade or two ago.
Just looking at crypto-currencies, they are all created automatically through mining. What if a community created their own crypto-currency, and instead of a small % of people receiving all the newly mined coins, everyone using the currency got a little bit? Nobody is having anything taken from them, no extra inflation is occurring, and you now have a universal income (within that community).
I am just living in a real world. Just tell me what kind of government we have now in the world that can implement this in a fair way? Do you know how humans are? It si a very important point that people who like communism and socialism tend to forget in the fight for the utopy ... and who fight for an utopy is fighting for air my friend.
And this about the community I can not imagine so much. I can see how the BTC community or Steemit works and til now is like the real life, power is concentrated in a small % (I am just making a point here, I know they are differences) ... To be honest, I have hope but I am also afraid of the blockchain technology ... it is not just a descentralized tool but also, from my point of view, a perfect tool for to control.
This is very difficult (impossible) to implement in real life without a central control if is a big town, city or country. Government will always look for the taxes and so on (I supose you aretalking about now) ... they need to have control. You can make it work maybe in a community or something small like it. Maybe!
You're living in the past you mean. Any time you're basing arguments on the way things have been, the way governments do it, what we have/haven't tried before, you're arguing from the past. That's all out-dated and does not create real limitations on what we can do now, tomorrow, or next year. The only limitations we actually face are our own creativity and to what extent humans are willing to work together for something new.
I've never advocated for government to do anything at all, and neither do many others who have discussed UBI. Anything government can do, voluntary association can do better.
Naturally cooperative, good, and socially mindful. Aside from socio/psychopaths, humans don't want to compete with each other, take advantage of each other, or otherwise be against others, except where it has been instilled as "right", "normal", or "the only way" by a culture carefully designed by sociopaths. (1, 2, 3, 4)
That's the only way that any agreements or structures can work, as it is the only way that humans can actually function together. Cities/states/nations are all unnatural fictions, which only serve when a small group wants to keep a much larger group under their control. If you can't build connections with the people around you, then you will never create alternative systems together, your ability to cooperate is hindered, and you have an increased need for "middle men".
Living in the past??? I am telling NOW ... you can not do it NOW! Btw, if I do not see how the past works I will make the same mistakes in the future ... kind of what happens all the time if I see history ... maybe because people think like you.
And you talk about dreaming? Where is the place you can do this NOW? Would love to see the voluntary people who really do not hink about they self. Altruism??? Yes maybe in the bible, someone call Jesus... fantasy land. You are hopping for an utopy and time pass and never comeback
And talking a bit of sense, but also no sense Even wild animals compete with each other... if you do not do you can not develop your self to the max you can ... it is not studies or writings done for a social scientis sitting at home or in a confortable lab of a capitalist country... it is what I have seen in real live in many countries for my work. Btw, iam not agree with adjectives or "right" or "wrong", I think it is very subjectiv and personal view.
I am agree 100%
Agree also, in Cuba, Brazil, Chile an many poor countries happens like that as far as I have seen (20 years ago and NOW) but because the government control the economy all this conections at the end are subject to this control.
PD: Who lives of dreams, dies of disappointments.
Anything we refer to as already happened, anything we've seen, is already in the past. This does not in any way limit our future. Humans are the most adaptable species on the planet, and getting better and better at it every day.
To argue that something cannot be because it hasn't been before, is simply wrong. Every new thing was "impossible" until somebody created it.
People repeat history because they do nothing but look at history and think that's the way it has to go, the only way it could be. The only people who have ever changed things are people who see an alternative that's never been tried and go for it, in spite of naysayers who can't believe in it until it's in front of them.
I am sorry that you live a reality where people are not cooperative and supportive of each other, that's really unfortunate. That is not the world that I live in, that's not the way that the 1000s of people across the world who I interact with every year are, but that's because it's not my belief, and our beliefs decide our experience.
That's right.
There is no correct way to implement UBI, no matter what scheme you contrive, it will not work. People have to create ways to use the land and our resources and enrich themselves.
That is a sadly limiting and close-minded perspective to take. We, as free-thinking, collaborative humans, can come up with a "correct" way to do just about anything. Any limitation other than where it becomes violation of another free being is purely illusory.
Most people in favor of the UBI seem to plan on being on the Receiving end don't they? haha
Well... since it's universal, everyone is on the receiving end. So I'd go so far to say that all humans in favor of UBI are on the receiving end.
You mean you don't want to be the one to pay for it?
The many possible UBI structures that have been discussed in these comments and in the series by dantheman that I linked to above, all involve ways of setting up a UBI which do not include taking from one to give to another.
If there is a calculated inflation (like that of BTC, ETH, etc), and that calculation or some portion of it (so miners can still be rewarded for their energy) is split amongst everyone involved, then you have a UBI. No theft required.
My friend @akaskew is creating a permaculture farm design which will be easily repeatable, and one of the facets is that a portion of all profits will be divided amongst everyone in the nearby community (who choose to sign up for the program). Another option which does not involve theft.
Even in a state model (which I never advocate), many countries have nationalized one or more of their natural resources. If a country had, say, nationalized oil, they could take all the profits of that oil and split it among their citizens (as Saudia Arabia does in small ways, paying for college for males; or as Las Vegas does with casino profits). [Again, I never support a state option, just giving more examples.]
Personally, I know better than to think that money is any sort of limiting factor on my life, health, or happiness. Food is grown by sun, water, and soil, it doesn't come from money. Shelter is built by wood, clay, human energy, it doesn't come from money.
I am in favor of any changes (voluntary & non-violent) which will help the masses come to the realization that scarcity is an illusion, that we live in a reality of absolute abundance. I see UBI as one possible stepping stone towards that. Everyone knowing that they have enough to survive, to tend to their basic physical needs, allows them to let go of this fear that has been conditioned into them, stop being slaves in order to survive, and begin to focus on their actual purposes for being here.
Scarcity is what gives things value. If there is no scarcity, then you need no UBI to buy things with, because they will be as abundant and free as air! duh. Everything is scarce and finite, that's why you want to distribute the means to buy things. Even time is scarce, we only have so many years of our life, and working hours in a day. Sure the world is big. But we must take our scarce labor, to develop those abundant resources into usable products (food, materials, etc.). Do you really sit outside and wait for the sun and soil to grow food for you? It takes a lot of labor and tools just to grow your own food. Money is what makes peaceful trade possible and it provides a measure of productive value and efficiency (prices). Without money, it would take you months to build a home, and you won't find any insulation, electronics, HVAC, or TV's to forage in the woods. Your goal for people sounds like something for nothing, not for me, I'll continue to earn my way thank you. If you are worried about people just donate, don't cop out ask that someone else do it.
Hmmmm, makes me wonder if a crypto could be used to implement UBI.
I haven't thought through the details at all but Steemit seems to be working on some pretty magical principles, so maybe there's a system that could create and donate value to the world independent of a government or central bank.
The obvious first issue is inflation....
There is already one: GrantCoin designed for this exact purpose, and I would say that Steemit definitely borders on the topic too. Between getting a few steem for free when you join, and getting curation rewards just for clicking 10 times a day, that's pretty close to a universal basic income.
Inflation is already part of every currency, whether fiat or crypto. The issue becomes uncontrolled/unstable inflation. With STEEM, that inflation is split between witnesses, curators, and authors, effectively limiting it's effect on the system by spreading it as evenly & widely as possibly.
If a crypto worked on any of the same basic mining/creation/inflation principles as BTC and the like, but say the miners got 25% and the other 75% is split evenly amongst all holders, then you haven't created any more inflation, but you have created a universal income. Just one though, I'm sure there are lots of folks already writing up the code for these things.
"This is fairly obvious to anyone who even has the most basic understanding of money, economics and human psychology."
Having said that, what is your suggestion for fixing the potential of mass-unemployment-leading-to-social-unrest that automation is already bringing in?
Is there a better option than printing some UBI (perhaps, somehow forcing the inflation on the elite, heh I can dream)?
I remain unconvinced.
Less monetary manipulation, crony protectionist regulation, taxation, trade restriction, and general economic intervention would be a good start. It's not that something must be done, but rather that too many misguided things are being done.
That would certainly be a great check-list...
I have no idea how we manage to get there though.
Stop trying to use politics as a solution. Withdraw consent from the system that operates entirely though coercion and plunder.
OK, let me rephrase: I have no idea how to get the average person (Kardashian watcher, Selfie-poster on Facebook) to even care, let along change anything in their life.
If you've tried "spreading the good word", you probably already know what I mean.
UBI is gaining a lot of ground with many countries and economists. Being tried in one of the smaller countries in Europe.
Apparently it isn't going so well.
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/07/20/opinion/finland-universal-basic-income.html?mcubz=1
I will agrue back at you on this one bud. Much money is spent trying to controll the homeless but if UBI was a reality much money would be saved. Also many people worldwide are underpaid, UBI would fix that. Or does dollar vigilante still believe the top one percent actually need all that money? No distribute it to the people. We need a major shift of wealth for UBI. if your against it then you are no anarchist or vigilante. Just another rich bitch, ignorant.
So, we're ignorant if we don't advocate theft based on income level?
No your ignorant cause universal income in no way advocates theft, mr.plunder
You said that the top 1% don't need their money and that it should be redistributed; obviously via theft (taxes). It will have to be Taken from someone.
Why treat an abstraction as an empircal bit!? If corporations have the same rights as 'people' then if you take from the top one percent of 'persons' i.e. corporations that have the same rights as people and also real life people treated as 'corporate beings', then the job of UBI would have to be to destroy that paradigm completely! You would stop treating corporations as people and people as corporations! First step to UBI baby! Why would it be considered theft if it was in fact a renegotiation of terms.
"Taking" even from companies, against their will, is theft. They are only "Corporations" for tax and regulatory reasons. The government only lays out a few options for organizing a business: Sole Proprietorship, Partnership, Limited Liability Company, and Corporation. So companies being identified and organized into corporations is a result of government regulation. Would there be big companies anyway? Probably Yes, and they would still be serving your needs better than any politician.
Companies have no will, except the will the humans give them. Going by the book for tax and regulatory reasons seems pretty uh, un-anarchy. When the companies in question use such practices as de-regulation, and terms such as development to expand their empire. Many poor countries have little to no regulations and these corps and govt's stomp all over them, pay them little and pollute their land. If people had UBI they would have much greater agency and not have to be forced to work for slave wages while the big companies ruin the land with mining, oil extraction, mono culture farming etc. I say don't let the government own your flesh and tax your body. Undue the birth certificate, who would want to be part of a country - corporation that oppresses their own people. "Take a step outside the planet, and take a good look at who you are."
Haha, its funny that the socialists use the robots as an argument:
Robots coming up in a free market:
Not all the jobs will be replaced in once, this will happen in a longer period. When the first robots come in, the salary will go down slightly. Few smartest take action and go look / learn for another job (job that still has demand in the market). Furthermore students will choose education for this job less, because they know there is no future. This will stabilize the salary temporarily, but finally it will go down again when more robots enter the market. Now the salaries go down more there will be more people shifting job and there will be no more new supply because the schools stop teaching this profession. In a free market the people will naturally relocate their job because of market forces and this will increase the overall wealth because robots produce for us.
Robots coming up in a socialist market:
Once the first robots come in the salary have to go down naturally and some will loose their job, but the government will add to the salary and pay the ones that lost their jobs to stay at home and being unemployed. This will increase the cost of the social security and taxes have to be raised. Now robots become even cheaper compare to humans and even more people will loose their job. Because they get money every month they will not / slowly look for other opportunities. Finally all human beings are being replaced by robots and only a few will get another job. Because the government have to pay a lot for unemployment they have to tax others even more, this will make other professions more vulnerable to being replaced by robots, because they compete less because the extra tax expenses.
Another thing that is always annoying me is the fact that people are always complaining that the USD buys less for Americans caused by inflation. I don't give a f#ck about the americans, they robbed the world for 100 years already. My problem is that ALL other civilians of the world have to exchange more of their local currency to buy the same amount of oil, steel, coal ect.(because it is based in USD) , so their currency will be inflated. This is the reason poor countries can never get out of their poverty and more rich countries work their ass of for the american dream.
Bring the robots, I will own them, I will own their energy and I will own their intellectual property rights, and I will enjoy my time at home with my family as we grow 80% of our food, produce our own clean water and energy and use my dividends from the robot labor force to travel the world and continue my education.
Exactly. The point of using machines is to Decrease our labor and Increase production.
If robots do the work and pay the taxes then basic income can be funded without taking property from any human. This is actually one of the ideas I endorse as workable once technology gets to that point.
Doug is the man
I'm guessing you're not a big fan of Grantcoin then?
@dollarvigilante I don't uderstand one thing, If and I say If robots can produce everything we need to live for free, why would Ellen work for you? Every studies show the same thing, yes technology creat jobs, but they take away more jobs then they create. This is a problem that we have to deal in the future.
Quite common in stattistics to forgot that people could change their job.
There would be people who were doing some task that would be replaced by a robot. And then they could be fired.
There would be people that weren't working before that could start doing by designing or maintaining those robots. Like first-time workers, young people.
But there could also be, and it always happens, that there is people who were working when robots are introduced into their jobs, but they decide to find another existing job who still is in need to be done by humans.
IMO, as Artificial General Intelligence increases it will be harder and harder to argue against UBI.
UBI is free money foe every single person. Capitalism is about creating opportunities of making money. If I wanted to provide a product or service to society, I would have to take into account that my employees would need to be paid at least one monetary unit more than whatever the UBI amount was at the moment. That would make me price the product or service taking that into account.
In other words, UBI is a way of making the market less free.
So when peoples jobs start getting replaced and they can't find new ones what are they going to do?
Getting a different one or study in order to get another kind of job or create a new kind of job which doesn't exist already
It's not about the jobs it's about wealth. People wont need jobs anymore because they'll have robots doing the jobs and providing the income. Whether the robots are businesses owned by each family and the shares are widely dispersed or the robots are all owned by the state and the dividends paid to all.
javirid- I think you may be underestimating the future of AI. I recommend reading Life 3.0 by Max Tegmark. Great commentary on a variety of scenarios on how AI may play out
Good points, Jeff. This kind of idea stems from a belief that you can create wealth by printing paper. They are so mistaken. Thank you for shedding light on this. Upvoted, my friend!
I'm all for the dismantling of the fiat/fractional system because the economics are unsustainable but the fiat currency masters created more wealth and better standards of living for more people than any other system in the known universe. This is a fact and I say this as one of their biggest critics. It was one hell of a casino while it lasted!
They did not create wealth. They transferred it from current money holders (us) to new money holders (government and well-connected special interests). With newly created money, they can buy at current prices, enjoying it's full purchasing power, while our money held decreases in value and doesn't go as far.
If I compare the city I live in to how things were in 1300 AD here I could prove without a doubt that enourmous wealth and standard of living have been created ( I could do this by comparative metrics). Why you're dismissing this obvious fact is astonishing and seemingly really fuckin' dumb! If you have a toilet and electricity you live better as far as standards than kings and queens in 1300. This is the wealth I'm talking about and standard of living is a fair synonym.
However, I think you may be talking about the machinations of the fiat/fractional system? A system which was fine in 1900 as the resouces and population could sustain the model; the earth can no longer sustain an economic model premised on unending debt and growth and consumption. You have this naive mindset that 1850 economic ideas (Adam Smith) are in any way relevent to the circumstances today. They are not! They are a death sentence to the planet and your way of outsourcing costs to the future as a way of doing business now should be made criminal! Got it? No, of course you don't because the blind have always loved to lead the blind!
BTW: instead of endless yakking on the internet about how corrupt the guvment is ( something I agree with) why don't you instead create a test town, city, 'state' that is patterned modelled on your political/economic philiosohpy? Typing on the internet is pissing in the wind! Show me the money!
But my best guess on this society: someone will want to run the show and that will take about 5-minutes into the experiment to happen. But again, I'm open to it.....
Yes i was talking about fractional reserve banking, as i though that you were. So much is lost between social interaction and text.
I agree, people should be left to associate and work how they like. I assume then, you have already created a UBI since you were in favor of that, right? How's it going?
And fiat did not create wealth, expansions in production and the ability to keep and reinvest earnings did.
There may be things we agree on? That goverments today have become corrupted by the business class? That governments now serve the fiat masters and their corporations and use govenment to solidify that power?
Now, correct me if I'm wrong: the early founding fathers of america sought to protect the citizen from the corrupting influence of power? But they did that within a government structure? So the issue it would seem to me through logical deduction is not government per se; but rather the corrupting influence of power?
In philosophy the assertion that it's the guvment that's the problem is called a strawman argument. It's imbalanced power relations which are at the heart of corruption in todays systems.
But evolutionary complexity is playing a role, too. The conditions today are no where near the same as 1750 no matter how much you wish that they were so.....
UBI is foolishness! It all goes back to the extremely flawed idea of income equality, that is Marxism revisited. In short, income equality leads to a lack of challenge. Challenge is what creates human engenuity, and innovation. This is why every major communist country sunk into despotism, and poverty. People do not thrive with nothing that challenges them. They thrive with competition. They thrive when they have hope of bettering themselves! They die or kill each other when they have no hope! Socialism denies humanity hope of a better life! Socialism says here, take your UBI, and thereby makes it valueless!
Freedom, on the other hand creates value! It says find your passion, and create your future! It says that there is no glass ceiling. The sky is the limit, and you can reach the sky! Freedom holds no man down, and gives every man the chance at greatness! Freedom is what brought cars, telephones, computers, the cotton gin, electricity, washers & dryers & dishwashers into the home! I envy no man his wealth, because that wealth is a sign of just what I can achieve!
In theory, yes. Freedom says you can create your future, and the sky is the limit. But we live in a system that does not truly allow that to happen for most people. It is preached, but not followed.
UBI would not deny people hope. It would provide relief.
If it does not allow it to happen for most people, it is because the people have abandoned it's tenents. Rather they have become complicit in their own slavery, by submitting to their political masters.
The people have abandoned it's tenents, yes, but not by their own free will. Constant distractions in media, anxiety through fear and propaganda leave us tired and defeated daily. I would posit that the masses have awoken and are not going to remain complicit any longer.
Of course, they have abandoned it by their own free will! It was their choices that allowed it, and under their continued agreement, it advances!
Wrong. I did not choose to be born into this system, neither did you. And when people try to show support for real change (like taking a knee in protest of systemic oppression), they are scolded for not being patriotic or for disrespecting the flag.
UBI isn't really about income equality because wealth between individuals is not going to be equal. It's about having an economic system which allows all humans to survive in it. Some humans are always going to be more wealthy just due to luck but the humans less fortunate have to be able to survive as well. If you don't let the less fortunate survive then if you are a wealthy person you are only creating future problems for yourself when those who have less envy those who have more.
So let's look at the effect of a minimum wage. This was the last trend similar to UBI. Has it stopped poverty as was promised, where it is practiced? What about welfare? What about old age pension? In fact, the elderly are some of the poorest in our society. The housing projects that promised to provide shelter have become dens of systemic poverty, which are more like cages, leaving people who struggle uselessly to escape. Socialism is a lot of promises backed by few results. In fact, it holds people down rather than pulling them up, and more often than not, becomes control, rather than help! Absolutely the ONLY solution is liberty! This means getting rid things like anti-camping laws, zoning ordinances which do not protect health, licensing laws, and other laws which wealthy socialists use to keep the poor in a place which they view as protecting their property values, and keeping them from having to visually deal with them, as well as preventing the wealthy from having to personally associate with the poor charitably. It is the same heart as the rich man had toward Lazurus, though they feel better about it, as they gave government the responsibility, which reduces their perceived guilt.
While you may not be envious of another person's wealth, we don't live in a world where everyone is like you. So the safety of the wealthy which could include you is at greater risk as more people are jealous of whatever you were born with. If you're born pretty then others will be very jealous of your beauty and some will even want to ugly you up so as to balance the playing field in their own favor. If you're born rich then some people born poor will be jealous that you were born with a silver or gold spoon. If you were born with some rare talent or were a child prodigy then some other student in class is likely to want to bully you because of it.
How are the wealthy (who were born with rare capabilities) supposed to deal with the propaganda of the future when there is no basic income and propaganda riles up others to create jealous rage mobs intent on taking from people who have too much or who have been too lucky? UBI is as much about security as it is about anything else.
Lack of UBI ultimately leads to social conflict, social disunity, and one way or another people get made to pay for their crime of being too lucky. The unlucky could simply feel that the lucky owe them something.
I agree 100%
UBI isn't Socialism. it is just a baseline "living cost" allowance to let people actually have a chance at developing themselves in a future especially where automation takes over the world.
What would you suppose otherwise for a world where everything from manufacturing (factory robots), transportation (self-driving trucks and ships), construction (automated cranes and builders), office jobs (Big Data), Professionals (Task specific AIs like IBM Watson .etc), IT (self replicating AI), Finanace (Again, bots and AI) and virtually every other things is done my automated softwares and hardware?
Take it to a more personal level, what are you doing to sustain your life now? A robot will take that over in our lifetime, very sure of it. I am professional drone pilot and even i don't kid myself and know one day these drones fly themselves. what do you suppose i do then?
Having UBI is not welfare check "for the lazy". All of us are lazy retarded unproductive idiots compared to the 24/7 efficiency of robots. Is that our fault?
UBI as least gives a person a means of sustaining themselves in order to find a way to be productive. Lets say there is no UBI and the only jobs left are drug pushing and prostitution to the people who are rich-by-default, since everything else is taken over by bots that are owned by the few who are born into the family that owns them. Is a woman now "lazy" because she would rather not sell herself for a meal?
Of course, if and when that future becomes a reality, i can easily go back into the woods and homestead on a piece of illegally owned land. If that's what it takes to be productive i'd do it.
UBI is far form Socialism.
UBI is a fully capitalistic idea if you think about it. Only that the capitalism is done by the centralized authority that controls the population with the UBI and the big corps that has free reign on maximizing profits and power with their nigh-infinite production capability, no pesky worker unions or employee rights to worry about.
In the 1970's George Wald proclaimed that civilization would end within 30 years. Paul Erlich declared the 100 -200 million people per year would starve to death within 10 years. Al Gore, who "created the internet", swore Arctic ice would disappear by 2013. Yet there is still ice! How long will people be manipulated by their Chicken Little complexes?
Centralized capitalism is not capitalism at all. It is communism.
Did you just called the United States of America a communism?
USSR had a UBI. Communist China, UBI. All the people they killed, not impressed!
this is like saying "Guns are made of metal, swords are made of metal, therefore metal is for killing".
Do explain how UBI leads to killing?
because if i am correct in using that same logic, i can easily replace "UBI" with any other thing.
See how that doesnt make sense?
Every place that communist thought has been tried, which includes UBI, has become or is in the process of becoming, despotic. In fact, that has been the most deadly political system in history! A trend is a trend.
You are equating UBI and communism, which does not make sense. You do know that the idea communism is made up of many components right?
and why are we even talking about communism? the argument here is about the viability of UBI in future society.
For Context, i do agree with @dollarvigilante on his idea that government and finance should be segregated. The current fiat currency system represents the worst kind of enslavement a ruling class has imposed to it's people.
While people are not dying, can you confidently say they are living? Sure they are technically, as long as they are profit making statistics in a spreadsheet. Unless they get out of the system and be weirdo hippie anarchist like even @dollarvigilante himself, one of the weirdest dude a normal American will ever see. Guy who plants his own shit in the backyard.
You can be fully capitalist and have universal income in the form of a national dividend or citizens dividend. You can even be anarchist and suppose a form of universal income in the form of taxemes and other voluntary mechanisms.
I think a basic income type fund is an awesome idea, but government money is fraud. In bitcoin land, we can make our own basic income contracts... Its a cool idea, but dont let the government destroy it! If people are into it, they will certainly pitch in.. cryptocurrency will lead the way with ideas like optional transaction taxes going to causes you support. .. if everyone had the option to choose their artistic path, freely, that sounds quite utopic.. that would be a beautiful, artisitic place, but, in the meantime, I have trouble finding reliable workers, as it is.. i need a robot assistant to cook, clean and garden... and ubi would probably make it harder to get help doing stuff that people dont like doing.
Yes, but the other side of that coin are those who coerce and exploit those who do the work one doesn't want to do oneself. Better incentives would help.....
Bahaha Jeff Berwick is a savage when he told the lady I'll give you $20 to clean my shoes 😅😅😂😂😭😭😭
Best part in the video, followed up with "since you've never done anything productive in your life" (or similar)
Universal basic Indentured citizenry.
They should call it what it is.
Just my two STEEMS Worth.
or actualy thats @ned's 2 Steems that I got as my universal STEEMcome
The supporters never are advocating to be the ones paying for it either..
Theres a lot of right wing support for unconditional basic income. Try to think of it as free market welfare. Instead of paying for welfare services you just give cash to people as they no best how to spend it for themselves.
Hell, even Milton Friedman was for it. Money is only free for the elites who get most of it!( read Picketty).
That's the thing, it would need to be implemented with the dismantling of the present welfare state and with a new education system not run by cynical misanthropes.
In the end the idea is more free market than the present system. It's either this or everyone should get an acre of land at birth with a new education system teaching people to become self-sustainable from and off the land.
BTW: I don't see that it needs to be universal (why do the Koch Bro.'s need welfare? )they already get tons of corporate welfare! I do think that minimum incomes should be guaranteed. One of the way to do that is to make currency a public utility. www.positivemoney.org
I also don't think there is one monological solution; I think we may need a plurality or a'multiplicity' of solutions.
Milton Friedman was also behind payroll deductions to secure income tax revenue. He's hardly an unimpeachable paragon of liberty.
He loved Mises!
Sure didn't learn a lot, judging by income tax deduction and UBI support.
Well, we all have our allegiances:)
If they support this, they aren't from the right as it is classically defined.
Where does the money come from in the first place? Neither taxation nor inflation are "free market."
Taxes or inflation unfortunately. The free market bit is giving the welfare direct as cash not dictating to people how it should be spent. Alot of people despise UBI because the amounts suggested are ridiculously high. I only would support something low that keeps people out of desperate dire poverty.
No, sorry. Receiving stolen money, even 'directly', is not a function of the market.
We have UBI now, it's called Social Security, and it doesn't work.
Ignoring the source of the money is bad economics and bad politics. You're just trying to dress up the broken window fallacy again.
Good point! They aren't worried about the details, they just want free cash!
Money comes from wealth but wealth doesn't only come from humans. This is why the job fallacy won't hold. Wealth comes from any kind of value whether it be land, or automation, or whatever else people find valuable at any time. Robots will generate most but never all of the wealth in society.
Humans will always possess some wealth and monetization of the human will always take place. Emotional labor might become a lot more expensive as robots begin running nursing homes and people want to be cared for by humans have to pay a premium.
I hate commies.
Me and you both kid. Responsible for millions of deaths worldwide...Their plans cost More than money...
Universal income gives the government unparalleled power to control the populace.
From a purely economic point of view, any time it has the word "universal" in it, you're really just looking at a wealth redistribution scheme. These ultimately never work and usually lead to inflation problems.
From a religious point of view, this is what happens when God is replaced by government. Instead of heading the call to be your brother's keeper and take care of the orphans and widows, we are coerced via taxation and those revenues are dismantled through government machinations.
Not all wealth is generated by people and not all wealth is "redistributed" because new wealth gets created. At a minimum each new person in a society adds wealth. And then there is land, there are the non-human animals like cats and dogs, all adding wealth as well. Just because you don't account for it doesn't mean it's not a value exchange.
Thank-you for pointing out the absolute failure of religion in modernity!
I would take the literal interpretation of The Book of Acts as far as how to run an economy (directly espoused by God himself)......A sharing economy!
Take a look at Distributism. Like all economic theory it is very idealistic but in line with Catholic Christian teaching. Chesterton was a major contributor.
Yes, I'm fairly well versed in Social Credit theory which was and is a very good idea. FWIW: it looks to me like someone has intentionally set out to destroy these ideas! A hint would be that Ayn Rand was used to replace Adam Smith's ideas, but Christianity and it's culture have more than one enemy so it isn't one group of people involved in this 'overthrow' of ideas on how society should be run. Muslims have their views which are somewhat antithetical so Christian culture as do atheists who have embraced fiat/fractional systems.
You should probably know that I believe it was The Catholic Church who codified the idea that the Torah Gd was The Christ's father; I do not believe this to be so.....
No way you say? Then take a look at the 1000 year reign in Revelation. Indeed, a cooperative sharing economy. Now why would Gd put inbetween those two sharing models a predatory capitalist system and why would 'his people' declare the predatory capitalist system to be the correct system when clearly Gd says that it is evil that rules this particular age?
Or, maybe the church in The Book of Acts was evil? Or, maybe the believers and their Messiah in the 1000 year reign are evil? Or, maybe it's this present age with its present financial models that are evil?
Dumb ass commie bitch
Gooo jeff!!! you tell her buddy!! She is an inferior, weak, afraid creature that justifies theft and statism becuase she fears possible negative outcomes in life.
You make beautiful video
Looking forward to watching the debate, I'm pretty torn on the subject.
What I do know is people have widely varying ideas about how a UBI/BI could be funded. "Printing money" shouldn't be one of them, if that is the UBI advocates answer to how it's funded? Of course it isn't going to work.
I'd also say it's not just socialists in favor of it, you'll even see some libertarians who are in favor of UBI. Although that may sound like a very strange concept (or even an oxymoron), it depends how it's funded. What if it followed the principles of voluntaryism for example?
There are even efforts to create a basic income by utilizing the power of blockchain, such as Manna (formerly Grant Coin) which sound very interesting but I have to say I've not looked into that project much.
I need to understand between Nexus earth and Nexus social media are they want by one organization?
good I am following you, I hope you will also Resteemed me this honor to me
I think, in countries like the Phillipines, or India, which have disgusting levels of inequality and poverty, there needs to be a mechanism whereby they can afford a humane standard of living. I don't think a UBI is the way to achieve this, but I can't think of an alternative. Such is the joys of not being an economist myself.
Inequality is natural to an extent due to the individual variances in ability, desire, time preference, and other factors; but massive inequality is usually a result of political plunder. Naturally, politicians love to propose more plunder as a solution.
Start big fight poor vs secured! Kill the disabled! Let the strongest survive!
I am fighting for the poor and disabled.
Oh, look, ma! A fcukin' genius has spokin'!
Unit 731
There are many issues at play here not the least of which are (in no particular order):
-unfair advantage.
-gaming the system/rigging the casino.
-equality of opportunity.
-the economics of unlimited growth on a finite planet.
-unnecessary exploitation and coercion of other people and life forms.
-inflation. (the biggest tax against the marginilized).
-compound interest.
-multiple types of unmerited wealth/rent seeking.
-predatory lending.
-20% of people own 95% of the wealth of the commons. 1% of the 20%? Well, that's obscene in every way imaginable. That's hoarding!
Okay, back to my burrito chicken slowcooker dish.....
Buchenwald forever
i will most likely play video games and eat pizza ... LOL ... upvoted
I remember when I first heard the "white privilege" nonsense coming out of the University of Minnesota about 6 or 7 years ago, I too thought that was ridiculous on its face and would not be widely adopted or accredited as worthy of public debate. I mention that because the progressives have a way of making a steaming pile of shit smell pretty good to the lazy thinkers and those perpetually envious. Keep spreading the word on why UBI is bad news.
Starting point to solve poverty is sharing the following:
Clean Air
Clean water
One moderate meal a day for everyone on the plant.
After that the sky is the limit to how much money you can make. But BIG but, Taxes must be fair.
Fairness must be defined first.
If you make $20 m a year and Mr. A is making 10K a year then you and your company/ies are using the country resources and infrastructures 2 thousand times or more than Mr. A. So taxes must be figured out to compensate the country for that.
You're looking at the economy as a zero-sum game. It's incorrect. It's a question of plunder versus productivity. If someone gains $20m/yr in the free market, it is because he is producing at least 20m/yr in value to other people. More, actually, because voluntary exchanges are mutually-beneficial.
Beyond that, "the country" owns nothing. Only individuals reason, choose, act, own, buy, sell, etc. Collectives do not exist as entities that can do any of these things. Governments are groups of people who use the mythology of collectivism to justify their individual plundering schemes, which are zero-sum systems at best, or more often negative-sum systems.
So who supposed to be responsible for building roads, hwys, defense, …. And how to bay for all that without having a regulated entity in charge. Let us call it whatever you like “Govcompany A” for example and “Govcompany B” and C….Right now we have insurance companies , electric companies , ….Some of which have budget bigger than some small governments. Corruptions can be found everywhere . both the government and big business are colluding to control the masses. You prefer private control other might prefer government . Government taxes are the companies ‘s fees. One is voluntary the other is not.
Without some sort of government, companies and free market will not survive . Government survive without companies .
You don't need government for roads or other infrastructure. The first interstate highway network was a private venture funded almost entirely with private capital. Your appeal to status quo does not really support anything. As for defense and security, we already have the example of companies like Detroit Threat Management and private arbitration services. And I would argue that the military is obsolete, and that is why it has been used entirely for belligerence for decades. An armed populace is a far better defense than a standing army.
Monopolies invariably promote waste and abuse because the economic calculation problem is a thing, and competition rewards providing better service at lower cost. Your fear of corrupt corporations can only be realized when choice is restricted by government intervention to prohibit consumer choice. Society and the economy predate the State. The only corporations that need the State are the ones that cannot survive against competition. they need subsidies and protectionist regulations because they would otherwise collapse.
I think you are assuming I am for government and against privatization. I am not. Also I am not with privatization against the government. I am with clear and regulated plain field for all. Neither government nor private companies can guarantee that. Or better said both don’t want that. Monopoly by corporation and oppression by government is what is going on now and it is getting worse by the year. We all remember from ENRON to Wells Fargo scandals and every corporation in between that have screwed up. And the government just passed the tax payer money straight to them in 2008. If smart people like you don’t come up with new system that has a self built in corruption proof mechanism sooner than later, it will be impossible to stop the snow ball few years from now. My prediction is the next election will have some interesting and nasty surprises for all unless very tragic event happens to unite the people on a fear based reality.
The problem is the belief that there needs to be a "system" at all. No one can design and administer an economic system that works any more than people can design and administer language. people can codify norms for reference, like in a dictionary, but creating new norms by any kind of mandate always fails.
The economy is similar. Price and trade are a language. they transmit information. Corporations are part of the government's attempts to impose arbitrary restrictions and prevent innovation. Corporations are a legal fiction crated by government, and government subsequently relies on the support of corporations in a massive codependent parasitic process.
Rules are very necessary as air and water. Any place shelter more than one person requires rules and regulations to maintain the peace. If you live with your own brother in one room or one house some rules have to be in place to make life easier and less confrontational. When you get out of the house more and more rules you have to know and watch out for. Some rules are simple. If you break it, an apology will avoid you a confrontation with somebody. Some might cost lives like crossing a red light. The larger the crowed the more complicated the rules get. We reached appoint where we invented governing systems in different sizes and forms. Nowadays we are closing the circle. Meaning the governments now is a source of conflicts and threats to individuals.
Technology and communication have become so advanced and quick globally where humanity can experience new themes of rules and systems. We invented smart technology in every field and it is not stopping any time soon. It is time to invent smart rules and regulations. What I mean by that is self aware regulations or I like to call it, living regulations that has its own conscious. I will give an example. Tens of years ago some organizations, companies and political parties had been established. Some lasted for few years some for few decades and some still exist today. The survivals have one thing in common; the ability to adapt and change to a degree was not imaginable by the founding peoples of that organization or company who have died long time ago. Survival entities have some intelligent and flexible rules that allowed for gradual change for the benefit of itself.
We can invent new systems with new regulations benefitting from last century successful experiences and at the same time close all the holes that will bring some bogs and thugs to the system.
Once happened to a rich island, I forgot the name of the island. Their income from rare bird manure is processed into a very expensive fertilizer. The community does not need to work, the state gives money for free to the community. Finally what, the country is destroyed, the income from bird droppings runs out and the people who have been accustomed to not working finally have no income. This is very harmful.
So how is robots and AI supposed to run out or not be sustainable? The truth is, it's like running a farm where as long as you have enough robots to feed all the people you don't really need human labor. Did horses complain when cars were invented?
I think if anything, basic income should be introduced in proportion to overall productivity increase of robots via estimates or surveys-- if at all possible. That way it offsets the inflation. Think of it as creating money to pay for a multiplied increase in productivity. What do you think?
BTW @36:00: planes basically already do fly themselves. There's like 5 different levels of computers which constantly monitor and actuate different systems of the plane automatically. It's not that big of a leap IMO to have a pilot that is not really flying the plane. I am not positive but I don't think current takeoffs and landings are technically executed by the pilot. I can verify that if anyone is interested in knowing for sure.
Congratulations @dollarvigilante, this post is the second most rewarded post (based on pending payouts) in the last 12 hours written by a Hero account holder (accounts that hold between 10 and 100 Mega Vests). The total number of posts by Hero account holders during this period was 201 and the total pending payments to posts in this category was $4894.77. To see the full list of highest paid posts across all accounts categories, click here.
If you do not wish to receive these messages in future, please reply stop to this comment.
That woman is insane.
Amazing patience Jeff.
We have UBI now, it's called Social Security, and it doesn't work.
All these geniuses in favor of UBI:
Don't wait for popular opinion! Start now! Give 30% of your income to people who earn less than you do, or who don't work. You said it would work, just show us!
Unless, you meant You should be the one receiving someone else's money?
How noble.....
What you don't get is that people who try to avoid giving now may end up having to spend much more later to keep what they have. It's up to each wealthy person to determine whether it's cheaper to pay in advance or pay later. The idea that a person can maintain and keep wealth absolutely for free is ridiculous and anyone with wealth knows it costs a lot to maintain it no matter what form it takes.
At the end of the day while wealth isn't equal, if everyone is satisfied then everyone wins.
Everyone will not be satisfied if a portion of them are robbed. Besides their wealth is theirs too keep and do with how they please. Just as is the fruits of Your labor Your's to keel. Like them, you earned it after all. Wealth must first be produced before it can be consumed. If you hamper the efforts of people with enough wealth to buy and employ capital goods, production will go down and prices of consumer goods will go up.
Just being jealous is not a valid argument against their right to keep their earnings.
Well, endplunder, you are a typing contradiction! On the one hand, you concede that most wealth today is plundered (and you are correct about that); or, to put it more correctly: most wealth today isn't earned it's created through corrupt unmerited means!
On the other hand, you are continually arguing that this wealth by theft should be protected......
You are caught in a performative contradiction!
And just for the record, I am arguing that ALL types of corrupt wealth be made illegal....
From fiat currencies to inheritance....Create an equal playing field of equal opportunity rather than the casino model of economy which has been set up..
Don't think so. Entrepreneurs who create value will earn wealth, and it is none of my business how or why they do so. Unless they have a government-granted advantage in the market, then that advantage should be removed, but they should not be robbed. And if you think they should be robbed, I ask that you do it and don't cop out and ask someone else to do it for you. It is the Government who gains all "revenue" via forced payments.
BTW how is inheritance corrupt? If someone wants to leave their kids money or property, why is that any of your business?
And what's wrong with casino's? I don't gamble. But at least consumers are free to chose whether they do or not and where.
Apology, unmerited was what I meant as far as an inheritance.
We agree on the corrupting influence of government but I disagree that no government would lead to no unethical entrepreneurial behavior.
What would be the difference between mafia actors extorting protection from small business as compared to theft via tax? That's one example and I could list 100's....1000's....
On inheritance: if someone leaves me a fortune can we at least agree that I did nothing to merit such wealth and that in receiving it I've gained an unfair advantage over those who don't receive an inheritance........
The casino model of economy has taken over the earth; hell, that is what Wall St. is! Wealth generated through speculation and it's now at the point where a few hundred individuals own over 80% of all stock wealth.
Wealth generated by the most dubious means imaginable. But okay, the best we can do as humans are to have vast systems of financial speculation premised on amorality.....
Gawd, no wonder folks are depressed and playing 'bang bang shoot shoot' every five minutes.
lol geesh. I don't agree on inheritance, it's none of anyone's business what you inherit. Even if you do nothing for it, it is their right to gift it to you if you are willing to accept it. If you want to give it up fine, but no one has the right to take it from you just because they think you may not have earned it. No unfair advantage in receiving a gift. Do you apply this to charities too? If a charity receives a large gift, does that put it at an advantage over other charities, and therefore should be taken from them by force? And if charity is Okay, who is to say that you may not chose to spend part or all of your inheritance on charity, is that portion of your inheritance now not subject to being seized?
everybody waiting on some great new technology to save them! It's already here it's called grow yr own food and build yourself a home! Stop paying the damn extortionists and encourage your neighbors to do the same! The earth already provides our basic needs! AND...
OUR MOST PRECIOUS RESOURCE LITERALLY FALLS FROM THE SKY!!!
It ain't diamonds or gold or bitcoin.
We could have a heaven on earth or we can have a hell. It's our choice.
Ask why your children don't learn how to grow and cook food in school!
Ask why your children aren't taught world languages at a young age!
Ask why your children's natural talents and interests aren't fostered and supported but rather squandered and squished until they are unrecognizable and nearly stamped out of existence!
Ask why your children aren't taught how to even BALANCE A CHECKBOOK or create a budget, let alone actually learn how money works in all 12 years (or more these days) of their indoctrination!
We need to imagine a completely different, COMPLETELY different world if we are going to make the shift. ALL old paradigms must be thrown out and new paths must be allowed to create themselves. We are starting to wake up to the idea that every moment of life is BRAND NEW! How can we begin to put limitations and guidelines on that???
Hi! I represent the official ICO bounty program https://crypto.tickets.
We really like your activity on Steemit and I want to invite you to our automated Steemit bounty program.
You can get Stakes easily for every repost or post.
About project: https://steemit.com/@crypto.tickets /@crypto.tickets
Official bounty page https://crypto.tickets/bounty.program.en.html and bounty thread – https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=2164768.msg21681052#msg21681052
Please, let me now about your decision in return message
good
You know Nordic country such as Norway are way way better than USA
I assume you do not understand AI and deep learning technically e.g pytorch hence the old thinking
this is a very interesting post
I think observers are missing the main point about Basic Income. It is that - when you give millions of people free money (basic income), prices increase to match the new spending power of said people.
So Basic Income is inflationary.
After a period of time, the people in need are back to where they started, and nobody is wealthier. There are just more zeros on the end of the prices.
The premise offered is that we can remove the administration of welfare to save money, and just pay everyone these minimum amounts, including those who don't need it. This is laudable in that it solves the age-old argument thus: why do those who work lose benefits, while those who do not are rewarded?
However, when the inevitable inflation occurs, who is left out? Which party loses? The answer is the poor, the retired and those on fixed incomes.
So Basic Incomes sets out to help people and ultimately causes the poor the most difficulties. And then you have civil unrest.
In fact the authorities would try to fix this problem with more easy choices: they would increase the amount of Basic Income. Perfect. Inflation would increase in a commensurate fashion. The value of currency erodes and is ultimately destroyed by this folly.
The bigger picture in the world right now is one of global deflation - an ageing demographic lending and spending less. One way to encourage consumers to spend is to give them money to buy stuff. Wow, problem solved, eh?
Should keep everyone in jobs and we all live happily ever after. The Germans tried that after WWI and the economy collapsed.
Anyhow, currency WILL be destroyed steadily by artificial measures like money printing (QE) and Basic Income (helicopter money), but the authorities' priority is getting the consumer engine going by any means. That is bad news for cash, pensions etc.
Basic Income forms one tenet of the fight against deflation. Other elements include negative interest rates (NIRP) (charge people to keep money in the bank) and removing large denomination notes (so storing your cash physically is costly and cumbersome). They want you to spend it.
Basic Income is being "trialled" in Finland, a small country where it may have limited success. In a larger country like the UK or US, the inflationary pressures could explode.