I guess I will stick to cfa questions from now on,
Warren Buffett said after practicing finance for years that he realized one thing he did not completely factor into his models: Greed. You have to consider it. You can’t expect people to be altruistic. The most you can do is be altruistic yourself and teach others to follow your lead. But, certainly do not plan on altruism. That would be a mistake.
brosef, here’s a little industry secret for you:
never mention anything in this thread to your employer. ever.
thank me later.
The stupid is strong with this one.
I’m sad to say that you are not far from stupidity, despite you label yourself as a “Charterholder”. I would sincerely doubt about it.
If all humans are given a modern subsistence lifestyle as a human right then all humans will seek that lifestyle as a human right. This causes more humans to reproduce because all children are certain of the same lifestyle. Very simple.
Why do some of the least certain environments (defined by economics) correlate with a higher fertility rate? Are you suggesting this is going to change?
People respond to incentives. Two hundred years ago people had many more children because they could help the family and because the opportunity cost for women was low. In the US today children are expensive to raise and come with significant opportunity cost for many women (and, increasingly, men). UBI removes that opportunity cost and also removes scarcity. Without controls there would be a population explosion among people who are living solely on UBI.
universal income is a good idea if unemployment is structurally really high, but completely unnecessary when unemployment is at 4.5%.
also universal income is actually much more beneficial to the economy than taxcuts. simply because universal income which disproportionately helps the poor will typically spend it on shit they need. taxcuts on the other hand just leads to further saving by the rich.
now the big issue with universal income is that it is very expensive. it’ll be a lot worse than social security/medicaid/medicare. it’ll ultimately lead to higher deficit spending, higher debt, which could crowd out private funding due to higher rates. Higher rates may also cause private companies to shut down, causing further unemployment. to put things to perspective, the government from federal, state, to local level, typically spend 22k/ per American already. Adding a universal income of say 22k, will double the federal deficit/GDP which already stands at~2% of gdp. and the debt to GDP is at ~100%. the govt needs to figure out how to grow tax rev whether by growing economy or outright taxing the rich.
i wouldnt consider universal income as communism. there should be a barebones safety net for everyone imo. i personally think universal income should also occur naturally for a democratic state. if people have equal power through voting, and the majority is poor, then this should be a no brainer, why it hasnt happened indicates that people either have strong principles against socialist ideas, or the majority just doesnt understand. in any case. fun topic.
I think you more or less said this- but it isn’t. The problem is where it would come from if it got big enough. If taxes got too high no one would be willing to work anymore and there’d be nothing left to tax. Any discussions of a post-capitalist system start at the end of UBI, not its beginning.
If we tax our best and britest they won’t have incentive to work had and create jobbers 
this assumption goes against all evidence available today. to assume people will have more kids because those kids will achieve some basic lifestyle in the future is crazy. why then does the us have less social support and yet a higher birth rate than the rest of the western world? doesn’t make sense. if you give somebody a UBI that allows them to live a fairly okay lifestyle, they’ll love that lifestyle marginally more than their previous lifestyle and in aggregate will act to not disturb their new favoured lifestyle. no person on UBI is going to say “i’m going to have 100 kids rather than 3 so they have wallow in near-poverty rather than abject poverty”. further, a UBI would likely come with a free education and currently low income people would learn more about protection and sexual health and also gain some world perspective. if you give everybody $200k per year, yeah maybe people will have ten kids, but if you give them $20-$30k, evidence shows that they will not have more kids. in canada, a family with two kids is guaranteed $36k per year today. canada’s birth rate is lower than the u.s.'s despite our population consisting of a higher percentage of new immigrants who bring with them a high fertility rate culture.
I don’t see why there should be universal income without work. Even if you pay someone a small amount of money, there should be something - anything - that the person can do to help society, even if it is something like picking up trash on the block.
governments represent the people’s will and are created on purpose. they create the rules and enforce them. you’re basically saying “if everyone could just know, agree on and abide by every rule ever made” we wouldn’t need government". you’re right, we wouldn’t. go talk to a police officer or correction’s office about how well people agree with and abide by established rules. asking for this on a global scale is absolutely beyond ridiculous.
your first step in achieving goal is to invite kim jong un, assad, netanyahu, putin, mugabe, trump, le pen, trudeau, maduro and the dali lama to a rule making meeting and get them all to agree to every rule we as a global society should abide by. basically every country of any size has an opposition party that wants fairly different things than the incumbent party. in europe, there are dozens of parties vying for the leadership of each country. if you can’t get current leaders all sit down and high five each other into the sunset, what you are asking is stupid.
I’m 100% agree with you that this model assumes an incredible effort in putting current leaders to converge into a single idea (seems impossible). However, this decision does not rely solely on our leaders, but on the whole people as a single will. The first step in the plan is indeed that every person understand how this economic and social model works, and realize is the most suitable model for long-term existence of humanity.
There are a lot of variables in this model that must be seen at the same time and not in isolation. For example, in your first paragraph you assume governments must exist because that’s the best way to enforce order. That’s true in the current socio-economic model. Why? because scarcity in many levels push people to commit crimes or to behave in an undesirable way. In other hand, a resources-based economy provides abundance and welfare for everyone, education and family is the spine of society, therefore law enforcement will be practically null. A vivid example would be Finland, where universal education, universal healthcare and high living standard practically wipe out criminality.
If we were able to use earth’s resources inventory to produce the things necessary for a high living standard for every people and we were capable to apply the best technologies available in every single city/point on earth, real efficiency and efficacy would be achieved very soon. In such a social environment, law enforcement would be dismissed.
As I said, this models assumes a lot of variables in conjunction, a small post as this can’t fairly explain the whole set.
