Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I am against UBI, but for different reasons than those previously cited. The thing about UBI is that it would have an impact upon the money supply. Currently, the money supply depends upon man's economic activity, his borrowing, for its size.
The Fed regulates interest rates. They have a mandate to control inflation. When they need to tighten the money supply they raise rates. That works because the banking system is where money is created. Money can be loaned out for each new expectation of a loan being paid off. The conspiracy theorists, who mostly seem to want to return to something like a gold standard, have a sad appreciation of how the system works. They hate the Fed, but the modern banking system has turned man into Nietzsche's superman. Or, to put it another way, it's like feeding the five thousand, by starting out with a few fishes and loaves.
The Federal Government does have the power to create money. The individual states don't. But if the government creates money while not also tying it up, or destroying it, then the money supply grows. The risk of inflation occurring and not being controlled would be quite high. Though it didn't work, I'm pretty sure that those behind the system would say that it was necessary for everybody to get in on it.
They'd say it didn't work because substitution with the old order was too easy. Then we would all be forced to lose our privacy and engage in some sort of crypto currency experiment. They would say that if they could just collect the data, then they could manage the size of the money supply.
5 year plans are a dangerous thing. They don't reflect the people's activity, but some approximation of it that leaves certain people out. Like weather forecasting they would go wrong. When they did, people would suffer. Since the majority could look at it and say the thing was still going in a direction they liked, there is a good chance nobody would care about the little people's suffering. Until the 'right' people suffered, nothing would change.
The current system does go off the rails from time to time, but nothing like the new thing would. At least the current system is responsive, even if there is an 18 month delay sometimes.
Generally, I don't like to criticize something like this without also offering a solution. I don't know how polite that would be to do that here, on this thread. But, if you have read this far, I might as well. I may never get you for an audience again.
I think the best solution along the lines dealing with automation replacing people is to deal with the situation through ownership. Corporations are owned by shareholders. There are various types of shares. I propose that there be a new class of stock which derives its return from the same pool of money available for executives of corporations to receive bonuses. The owners of this class of stock would vote each year, based upon how much money there was available in that pool of money (or some other pool that was deemed pertinent), how much of it they would get and how much the executives would get.
We could manage using that natural inverse relationship, it being that if shareholders vote too much for themselves the executives would have less incentive to perform, but why would they give up before reaching that level? When automation replaces even the executives, their former place in the scheme could be replaced by another class of stock which sought its own return. Robots could do everything, and there would still be a slice of the pie that ordinary people could occupy. It would probably be about as large a slice as the percentage of wealth that ordinary people enjoy now!
But should we encourage a completely corporate world? We would still need entrepreneurs, to recognize new opportunities. To address that, the government could involve itself in capitalizing the people. Yes, this would seek to accomplish the same sort of thing that the banking system does for people today. I think we could do it alongside the banking system. It would address inequality more than what we have now because the government would not discriminate in what it gave people based upon their credit rating.
How would we do that? I think the best way would be to start everybody out at the age of 18 with a certain amount of money that was available to them. Let's say that was $500. Some people might take that money and buy $500 worth of candy and sell it at their old high school's football games. Others might do something more creative with it. Those who did something with it would have the money to pay the $500 back. Paying the money back would guarantee that the money supply did not grow out of proportion to human activity.
Next time, their credit rating would be higher. If they just sucked the money down and played video games, they would be suspended from any new money for a period of time. Since they might have tried an endeavor that might've paid off, but didn't, that period of time would not be forever. The way the system dealt with people would be based upon how they interacted with it. The system would reward those who did something industrious, without demanding it fall into any particular category. It would teach people something about what works and what doesn't as well. And we would still have the banking system.
Last edited by Am I a Prophet; 05-03-2020 at 09:47 AM..
Reason: the writing process
OK, if a person was laid off and cannot get money from unemployment of have not received their stimulus check yet, they are not self-sufficient. I am pretty sure a number of them are from small businesses got screwed with the PPP whether it was by insufficient funds or the fact that publicly traded companies and now they is no job to return to. What do you propose for these people?
I'm on the side with people who don't like UBI because if there were such thing, lots and lots of people would not want to work hard to support themselves. They just sit at home and still have income for them to pay for food and shelter and clothes, why would they want to work? They are parasites and leaches to eat off and suck blood out of people who work. That's not fair. That's not right.
Regarding your question above, millions of people and I understand that this is the very difficult time for people who lost their jobs and need help temporarily from the government for them to get back on their feet. The situation will change, maybe slowly, but it will change to be better. Nothing stays the same, good or bad, for ever.
I remember decades ago, there were lots of people who could get UI and welfare very easily. But the government thought of ways to change the systems. For the UI, they changed the systems like whoever quit or got fired could not get UI, unlike before that people could just work for six months and quit, or got fired, and could get UI very easily. Lots of people did that all the times because they liked to not work and get free money and play and enjoy their life while others were working hard and paying tax to pay for UI for them. For the single mothers, they provided training programs for them to enter the workforce and helped them to find jobs. They made it difficult for lazy butts to not just want to sit at home, to have sex and poop babies out and get welfare forever.
I'm not a genius economist, I don't work in the government, I can't think of a specific proposal how to help these people, but I'm sure people in the government and/or some genius economist will think of some good ways.
I'm not rich, nor poor. I do have empathy and sympathy for people who are unemployed and have no money to pay bills. But I totally oppose UBI because I don't want to work my butt off for some people to just want to sit at home and still have money, food, clothes and shelter and enjoy life. They may laugh and think the hard-working people are stupid. I don't want to be like them. I wan to work to support myself and my loved ones and be a useful citizen for the society.
Last edited by AnOrdinaryCitizen; 05-03-2020 at 12:08 PM..
Why are you not understanding that you have to be responsible for your existence on this planet? And that you have no right to demand that others feed or clothe you?
It’s really so simple. Get a job. Put 15% of your pay in savings. First of all you’ll be secure. Second of all, you’ll get wealthy. Investing money from weekly pay at the rate of 15% makes you a multi-millionaire at retirement.
UBI is a scam. The money doesn’t just appear. It is being earned by someone. And you just want to take it away from them. That’s not nice. Or civilized.
Are there no exceptions in your world, Man with THE Plan?
Everywhere. We import millions of illegals every year to get work done that Americans could do, but are too spoiled and lazy to get their hands dirty.
That's baloney. Illegals are hired for one reason and it has nothing to do with Americans being too spoiled or lazy and you know it, Larry. It has to do with MONEY. Illegals are CHEAP!
Last edited by PerditaPanthera; 05-04-2020 at 01:08 AM..
UBI will perpetuate taxes, debt, lack of motivation and/or inflation. But those against view it as entitlement. It might work better in small countries with a different form of government but just can't plug in and play ubi.
In addition to my last post, UBI is a very bad idea because there would be more and more people just want to sit at home doing nothing, and just doing drugs, smoking weed, drinking, f*cking each other, and pooping babies out. And those lazy butts will whine and whine more and more and demand the government to give them more free money to buy food for their children. Poor babies and little children. Those lazy butts don't take responsibilities for themselves; but they think the government has to have responsibilities to solve their problems. The more money government to give them, the more they want. It's never enough. That's very absurd.
The saying "Idleness is the root of evil" is very real.
When people work, their mind is busy about work thinking about doing good and useful things. And when they have vacations, they use the vacation times to enjoy life in healthy ways.
When people don't work at all, they have too much free times, they feel bored, so they pick on each other, find stupid things to start arguments and make up and do all the stupid and disgusting things mentioned above.
The world is already over-populated. It does not need more lazy butts, poor babies, parasites and leeches.
The only place where UBI belongs is in an authoritarian communist regime where the government can mandate that everyone work as well as receive income.
UBI will perpetuate taxes, debt, lack of motivation and/or inflation. But those against view it as entitlement. It might work better in small countries with a different form of government but just can't plug in and play ubi.
Why would an innately immoral policy based on socially sanctioned theft from those who earn and produce to those who do neither work better in a “smaller” country? The fact is, there is no country size where a shameful and evil policy such as universal basic theft would work at all.
This is the problem with utilitarianism. You worry if something “works‘ rather than analyzing what something actually is. If it’s fundamentally evil to steal, then we shouldn’t be considering or analyzing public policies based on theft. OF COURSE UBI “works”, for the guy getting the free stuff. Taking money from someone against their will and giving it to someone else who hasn’t earned it and doesn’t deserve it should be DOA, yet it gets “discussed” rather than condemned.
Why would an innately immoral policy based on socially sanctioned theft from those who earn and produce to those who do neither work better in a “smaller” country? The fact is, there is no country size where a shameful and evil policy such as universal basic theft would work at all.
This is the problem with utilitarianism. You worry if something “works‘ rather than analyzing what something actually is. If it’s fundamentally evil to steal, then we shouldn’t be considering or analyzing public policies based on theft. OF COURSE UBI “works”, for the guy getting the free stuff. Taking money from someone against their will and giving it to someone else who hasn’t earned it and doesn’t deserve it should be DOA, yet it gets “discussed” rather than condemned.
Isn't it all based on theft and force anyway?
I cannot legally be fully self-sufficient. I cannot own property outright, producing my own food, water, heat, clothing ect. without someone coming to take my property tax or take me to jail. I am thus forced to be productive. Is there much of a difference, anyways?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
