This is so false its funny
I think I have been too far with term almost , but my point is that technology is replacing humans at a faster pace than we can find new productive things economically for the average person to do.
Good post.
But why is UBI always defined as coming from the government? Because the people who write the proposals are corporatists, and this is most acceptable politically (because the corporations control the government). After the corporations took all the money from the citizens, and cannibalized the government (2008), they want the government (which is bankrupt) to keep the citizens on life support.
It’s not that there’s something wrong with functional capitalism, but this is broken-market capitalism right now. Einstein called it in 1950, that the wealth would concentrate, and that we’d end up in this situation. UBI or not, that has to be addressed, because the society can not move forward forever with wealth concentrating into a smaller and smaller number of hands (populist uprising eventually happens). When this problem is fixed, they may find UBI isn’t needed.
bitcoins kids
I think we at least agree with the problem, and populist uprising is definitely a symptom of this income inequality. I just don’t agree that a government in a floatig-exchange rate who have, utilimatly, control over monetary (so not like countries in the euro zone) creation can ever be bankrupt. But a lot of people think this way an that’s why I think direct money creation that does not increase public debt is a better way to finance ubi.
Just to be curious, how would you redistribute wealth more efficiently?, corporations are not going to start giving money just like that if we don’t force them to do so.
based on your casual observation?
Listen, if you want a thank you for pointing out I was wrong and that I did not write my thought clearly, then here it is:
Thank you Isaiah_53_5
You wack maple frog
Yeah, you’re basically describing communism. Who’s going to maintain the machines, produce entertainment, build and develop the power grid and food sources, manage defense (everyone just becomes angels overnight?), go to medical school and develop treatments, develops infrastructure and innovates new technology?
One of the problems with “basic income” is that it keeps inflating because everyone feels entitled to what the guys that work have and the guys that work hate the people that don’t. Plus the people at the top will just continue to screw everyone else and live a richer life at their expense (see every communist society ever) so it basically just becomes morphed capitalism but with structural barriers to class mobility that crush incentives. People will always abuse the system and the people given that much control over a lazy fat cow populace will always feel the temptation to crush them and become God. Give any aggressive person the keys and total control to such giant machine and they would 100% do it in a heart beat. A people that gives over control of their own destiny gets what they deserve. Lastly, it’s been shown that people derive their happiness not from what they have but what they have relative to those around them. You’d basically be trading a rich culture for 1984.
Ultimately people say, well maybe it’s a hybrid. Where do you draw the line, you’d still have to expropriate capital from the private side. It ultimately works out to a feudal system and BTW, we are far from reaching this point. It’s pie in the sky.
Such an interesting post right here! Never mind to find this kind of posts on AF since most ppl here are meant to work for “efficient markets, capitals and investments”.
To OP. You are not wrong. Indeed I’m glad you pointed out that there is a structural problem in economics and society around the globe. The current socio-economic structure is not sustainable in the long-term. And I mean “long-term” as 50 to 1000 years. Is humanity going to live well for another thousand years?
To everyone: Have you ever heard about the term “Resources-based Economy”? I think it has a lot to do with UBI you talking about, however it goes much further. This kind of economic structure has never been tested before. The theory states that natural resources are limited (1 earth), so the success for everyone comes from an optimal use of those resources.
Technology is a critical factor since it provides the possibility to produce goods and services efficiently (optimally). So, there is a population to be sustained. Production is calibrated to produce the quantity required for a reasonably good quality of life for every person: a house, food, clothes, education, transport, entertainment, time, medical attention, etc. And the most stunning part is that all those goods and services are free for everyone… yup, money does not exist, just a social record of your actions and altruistic labor (which would have a very important implication for everybody, we can elaborate later about this).
In short, the whole earth inventory of natural resources are used in the most efficient way around the globe to produce what is needed and the trash efficiently recycled to minimize environment pollution. Only a small amount of the population are meant to “service or work” to maintain the system operative and most probably expected to rotated because the incredibly supply of people wanting to “service”. The key word here is altruism.
This to be done is necessary to eliminate country borders, governments, private belonging as we know today, patents, information control, etc. When the most advanced technology today is available for everyone, what are the capabilities of production and welfare? Sounds epic.
uhhh what?
A global communist world without borders?
As a guy said far above: “Math”.
The math tells us that in order to optimally harvest and use natural resources we need to be able to use world inventory, not US inventory solely, nor french, or peruvian. This needs to be optimum. Are you aware that most countries are not in possession of a complete natural resources set, aren’t you?
Yeah, but many countries have compete resources in America we have the best resources, everyone knows this, why would we give that up. Why would any country give up it’s natural resources to a country that doesn’t just so everything can be equal. Lame!
It 2017 and this guy playing like Russia won the cold war.
I think there should be a communism equivalent for Godwin’s law
seriously, I agree that incentives are important, and I don’t a think ubi would stop people from innovating. we are not only Homo Economicus, people will want to keep innovating both because that they may find that the basic income is not enough for them and because they want to have an important role in the society they live in. I would even argue that people innovate more when they are free from the anxieties of having to provide for their basic needs.
Are you aware that the US trade balance is negative for US since at least 40 years? Your resources are not enough though.
“Country” is a limitation for achieving the optimum path. Why countries? Indeed, they are good at providing order and defense in the current world socio-economic structure. However, “country” is not more than just a restriction in a resources-based economy.
Why give up? As said before, the altruism is necessary for achieving peace and a long-term welfare for everyone. This is necessary for human evolution. It’s a pity that most people today think this is bullshit or stupid. I hope still got time to reverse the involution.
You are still thinking in a competitive market (where people compete to earn the scare resources for them). Isn’t it a little bit contradictory to UBI? Remember that innovation (through Research & Development) is leaded by corporation, not just by individuals. At least the innovations that can have more probability of success because the big amount of resources (money) put into it.
Anyone who’s ever innovated will attest to the immense difficulty and work that goes into it. I don’t think people sweat it out for years just for fun.
Trade balances has nothing to do with a resource shortage and everything to do with buying cheaper manufactured goods backed by less regulation and cheaper labor. We’re a net exporter of most commodities. A country allows the people who live with those resources to benefit and not have them ripped away by some freeloader in India. #CommonSense #SeePerCapitaGDP
That assumes centralized gov’t can actually effectively allocate capital and motivate innovation. History has conclusively shown otherwise. You’re arguing for a command economy long after that has been put to rest. We all saw East Germany after the wall fell and the collapses of every major command economy as their technology failed to keep up. It’s done, sorry.