FabSwingers.com > Forums > The Lounge > Universal Basic Income
Universal Basic Income
Jump to: Newest in thread
| |||
| |||
| |||
| |||
"Can you explain a bit more please x" It a scheme whereby every one in the country receives a regular income from the government. It’s not means tested. So available to all. At first it sounds either too expensive or too good to be true. But there are serious people considering this and some of the arguments are persuasive. | |||
"Can you explain a bit more please x It a scheme whereby every one in the country receives a regular income from the government. It’s not means tested. So available to all. At first it sounds either too expensive or too good to be true. But there are serious people considering this and some of the arguments are persuasive. " It would be good if it covered basics, such as food and clothing. As in my belief, items that are essential to survival should be made readily available anyway. That way, money earned by working can be used for luxuries | |||
"Can you explain a bit more please x It a scheme whereby every one in the country receives a regular income from the government. It’s not means tested. So available to all. At first it sounds either too expensive or too good to be true. But there are serious people considering this and some of the arguments are persuasive. It would be good if it covered basics, such as food and clothing. As in my belief, items that are essential to survival should be made readily available anyway. That way, money earned by working can be used for luxuries" So, like being paid simply for being alive then? Yeah. Fabulous idea | |||
"Can you explain a bit more please x It a scheme whereby every one in the country receives a regular income from the government. It’s not means tested. So available to all. At first it sounds either too expensive or too good to be true. But there are serious people considering this and some of the arguments are persuasive. " Have you seen the universal credit role out. This ubs seems ridiculous they give in one hand and take it out of the other. They claim that childcare costs are free but they are not they are not an add on it is taken out of tax credits. There are so many holes and so many hoops to jump through. Why not keep it simple with a realistic living wage enough to support ourselves our families etc | |||
"Can you explain a bit more please x It a scheme whereby every one in the country receives a regular income from the government. It’s not means tested. So available to all. At first it sounds either too expensive or too good to be true. But there are serious people considering this and some of the arguments are persuasive. " One question. As the government has no money of its own, where would this money come from? | |||
"Can you explain a bit more please x It a scheme whereby every one in the country receives a regular income from the government. It’s not means tested. So available to all. At first it sounds either too expensive or too good to be true. But there are serious people considering this and some of the arguments are persuasive. It would be good if it covered basics, such as food and clothing. As in my belief, items that are essential to survival should be made readily available anyway. That way, money earned by working can be used for luxuries So, like being paid simply for being alive then? Yeah. Fabulous idea" After they killed you first by being broke and poor and hungry | |||
| |||
| |||
| |||
"And who will be paying more tax to fund this scheme?" I don't get why people whine about paying more tax but are ok with paying for health insurance etc... The economy would pick up with everyone having income enough to be spending so.... | |||
"And who will be paying more tax to fund this scheme?" There’s an estimated £400bn a year of tax relief for the wealthy and large corporations that would be a good starting point. | |||
 | |||
| |||
"I’m no expert but i think they’d be making a rod for their own back. How the chuffing nora are you supposed to continue paying that, to everyone, when we are in debt as a Country as it is? Our NHS and other services are on their knees The elderly are struggling on their Pensions We have Mental Health services being cut...Prisons are in the crapper... Just stop promising bullshit and deal with the problems we already have "  | |||
"The countries where it has been implemented seem do be doing well. It would be better in the long run, for the economy aswell as the population. Unfortunately most only think short term so things get axed before they can get off the ground properly. " . Where's it been implemented already? | |||
"Can you explain a bit more please x It a scheme whereby every one in the country receives a regular income from the government. It’s not means tested. So available to all. At first it sounds either too expensive or too good to be true. But there are serious people considering this and some of the arguments are persuasive. One question. As the government has no money of its own, where would this money come from?" I was just thinking the same thing. | |||
"And who will be paying more tax to fund this scheme?" Good question. However, there is an argument that by reducing the vast infrastructure which currently calculates and distributed benefits some of the costs will he recuperated. I know UBI won’t cater for the need for all benefits but it will remove many. | |||
"And who will be paying more tax to fund this scheme?" Maybe getting Amazon to pay its fair share of tax is a start ? | |||
"And who will be paying more tax to fund this scheme? There’s an estimated £400bn a year of tax relief for the wealthy and large corporations that would be a good starting point. " . Ah the old rich have got 400 billion stashed away in they're airing cupboards and if only we could appropriate it and put it to good use message!. Just where do you honestly think this 400 billion is right now? | |||
"The countries where it has been implemented seem do be doing well. It would be better in the long run, for the economy aswell as the population. Unfortunately most only think short term so things get axed before they can get off the ground properly. . Where's it been implemented already?" Small scale trials in Finland, Canada, US(Denver, Seattle, Indiana), India, Namibia to give a few examples. | |||
"The countries where it has been implemented seem do be doing well. It would be better in the long run, for the economy aswell as the population. Unfortunately most only think short term so things get axed before they can get off the ground properly. . Where's it been implemented already? Small scale trials in Finland, Canada, US(Denver, Seattle, Indiana), India, Namibia to give a few examples. " . So no countries have adopted it then? | |||
| |||
| |||
"The countries where it has been implemented seem do be doing well. It would be better in the long run, for the economy aswell as the population. Unfortunately most only think short term so things get axed before they can get off the ground properly. . Where's it been implemented already? Small scale trials in Finland, Canada, US(Denver, Seattle, Indiana), India, Namibia to give a few examples. . So no countries have adopted it then?" Not that I’m aware of. I’m not an expert. I’m just interested. I think governments around the world are watching these trials with interest. Especially given the rapid progress in Artificial intelligence and robotics to disrupt the work place. Many skilled jobs will start to be replaced by technology. | |||
"I’ve been reading a bit about UBI recently. Is it a good idea? Or doomed to fail? " It is a good idea worthy of trials. Every citizen guaranteed a minimum income on which to subsist. The differential between the minimum income and minimum wage is crucial. | |||
"The countries where it has been implemented seem do be doing well. It would be better in the long run, for the economy aswell as the population. Unfortunately most only think short term so things get axed before they can get off the ground properly. . Where's it been implemented already? Small scale trials in Finland, Canada, US(Denver, Seattle, Indiana), India, Namibia to give a few examples. . So no countries have adopted it then? Not that I’m aware of. I’m not an expert. I’m just interested. I think governments around the world are watching these trials with interest. Especially given the rapid progress in Artificial intelligence and robotics to disrupt the work place. Many skilled jobs will start to be replaced by technology. " You should read Paul Mason's Postcapitalism, it covers a lot of this | |||
"The countries where it has been implemented seem do be doing well. It would be better in the long run, for the economy aswell as the population. Unfortunately most only think short term so things get axed before they can get off the ground properly. . Where's it been implemented already? Small scale trials in Finland, Canada, US(Denver, Seattle, Indiana), India, Namibia to give a few examples. . So no countries have adopted it then? Not that I’m aware of. I’m not an expert. I’m just interested. I think governments around the world are watching these trials with interest. Especially given the rapid progress in Artificial intelligence and robotics to disrupt the work place. Many skilled jobs will start to be replaced by technology. You should read Paul Mason's Postcapitalism, it covers a lot of this " Thanks, I’ll look it up. | |||
| |||
| |||
"Cynical old me says “doomed to fail”. It goes against basic human nature and the strive to develop and improve. Also the chances of getting the whole planet to state zero of fiscal equality, which would be fundamental to its theoretical success, is frankly nil. " I don't think it's attempting this, it's more a question of whether we can allocate time and resources in a way that's more beneficial | |||
| |||
"Cynical old me says “doomed to fail”. It goes against basic human nature and the strive to develop and improve. Also the chances of getting the whole planet to state zero of fiscal equality, which would be fundamental to its theoretical success, is frankly nil. I don't think it's attempting this, it's more a question of whether we can allocate time and resources in a way that's more beneficial " Yes, fully aware that the intended consequence is increased social conscience and altruism; that doesn’t get away from the fundamental requirement for basic fiscal equality. Lovely in theory, however, so was communism. | |||
"Can you explain a bit more please x It a scheme whereby every one in the country receives a regular income from the government. It’s not means tested. So available to all. At first it sounds either too expensive or too good to be true. But there are serious people considering this and some of the arguments are persuasive. It would be good if it covered basics, such as food and clothing. As in my belief, items that are essential to survival should be made readily available anyway. That way, money earned by working can be used for luxuries So, like being paid simply for being alive then? Yeah. Fabulous idea" Yeah it is, they tax us for being alive so | |||
| |||
"The countries where it has been implemented seem do be doing well. It would be better in the long run, for the economy aswell as the population. Unfortunately most only think short term so things get axed before they can get off the ground properly. . Where's it been implemented already? Small scale trials in Finland, Canada, US(Denver, Seattle, Indiana), India, Namibia to give a few examples. . So no countries have adopted it then?" Many have, Libya, Zimbabwe, Luxembourg Dubai, Saudi Arabia and many many more | |||
| |||
| |||
"Cynical old me says “doomed to fail”. It goes against basic human nature and the strive to develop and improve. Also the chances of getting the whole planet to state zero of fiscal equality, which would be fundamental to its theoretical success, is frankly nil. I don't think it's attempting this, it's more a question of whether we can allocate time and resources in a way that's more beneficial Yes, fully aware that the intended consequence is increased social conscience and altruism; that doesn’t get away from the fundamental requirement for basic fiscal equality. Lovely in theory, however, so was communism. " I agree one of the risks is potentially increasing fiscal inequality. It will be interesting to see how it works in practice | |||
| |||
"While the idea has it's positives, there will always be those who take advantage of the system. Everything has it's flaws. " How can you take advantage of it any more than people already do? | |||
"And who will be paying more tax to fund this scheme?" The same people who currently pay for the sick, the stupid the lazy. People who are have some sort of morals, work ethic and willingness to make use of their education to get work hard, and get decent jobs Obvs. | |||
"This kind of thing is great but having a government that is up for making sure companies pay a wage you can live on and they can't get away with avoiding their taxes, rents are capped and corruption is stamped out as much as possible would actually, probably be better. " . The only reason companies don't pay more is because they don't have to, socialist governments always step in and subsidies the gap and failing that jump to unlimited immigration, rents don't need capping you just need to ensure fair markets, capping is the very essence of an unfair market, but yes on your last point, corruption really does need to be stamped out as much as possible | |||
| |||
| |||
"This kind of thing is great but having a government that is up for making sure companies pay a wage you can live on and they can't get away with avoiding their taxes, rents are capped and corruption is stamped out as much as possible would actually, probably be better. . The only reason companies don't pay more is because they don't have to, socialist governments always step in and subsidies the gap and failing that jump to unlimited immigration, rents don't need capping you just need to ensure fair markets, capping is the very essence of an unfair market, but yes on your last point, corruption really does need to be stamped out as much as possible" Good ideas but, all banks, landowners, gas has to do is inflate their price excessively above the universal basic. worth a try though | |||
"I think UBI is an interesting idea, but doesn't solve the underlying issues: the cost of housing is out of control, while big business can be more creative at minimising taxes than a working person can. My contribution: land value tax to move the burden of taxes away from income and on to asset hoarders." I agree that there is a big difference between wealth and income and UBI is really only concerned with income. The wealth gap is even bigger than the income gap. In the uk the top 10% wealthiest households own more wealth than the bottom 80% put together. And that gap is growing. Which means the wealthiest are getting wealthier at the expense of every one else. Which includes me and most of you. | |||
"This kind of thing is great but having a government that is up for making sure companies pay a wage you can live on and they can't get away with avoiding their taxes, rents are capped and corruption is stamped out as much as possible would actually, probably be better. . The only reason companies don't pay more is because they don't have to, socialist governments always step in and subsidies the gap and failing that jump to unlimited immigration, rents don't need capping you just need to ensure fair markets, capping is the very essence of an unfair market, but yes on your last point, corruption really does need to be stamped out as much as possible Good ideas but, all banks, landowners, gas has to do is inflate their price excessively above the universal basic. worth a try though" I never said that was all that had to be done... But it is a bloody start. | |||
"I think UBI is an interesting idea, but doesn't solve the underlying issues: the cost of housing is out of control, while big business can be more creative at minimising taxes than a working person can. My contribution: land value tax to move the burden of taxes away from income and on to asset hoarders." . Don't worry about the cost of housing, houses have never in history been cheaper to build them they are right now, what we're seeing is speculation for profit and if you just leave it be and stop interfering with socialist ideas like subsidising first time buyers the correction would already be upon us, alas due to this we're going to have to wait but the correction is coming, that's a fact and people who've speculated for profit will lose alot of money, except the lucky few who time it perfectly | |||
"So, like being paid simply for being alive then? Yeah. Fabulous idea" Having read some of the recent items about the rise of artificial intelligence; a lot of people (or pretty much anyone who doesn’t actually make anything) could be unemployed within the next 50 years or so. What do you suggest; a cull of anyone you deem not worthy of an existence? | |||
 | |||
"So, like being paid simply for being alive then? Yeah. Fabulous idea Having read some of the recent items about the rise of artificial intelligence; a lot of people (or pretty much anyone who doesn’t actually make anything) could be unemployed within the next 50 years or so. What do you suggest; a cull of anyone you deem not worthy of an existence?" I suggest that it'll be rather academic by that time If we carry on abusing the planet at the same rate, the human race hasnt GOT 50 years!! | |||
"Can you explain a bit more please x It a scheme whereby every one in the country receives a regular income from the government. It’s not means tested. So available to all. At first it sounds either too expensive or too good to be true. But there are serious people considering this and some of the arguments are persuasive. One question. As the government has no money of its own, where would this money come from?" Obviously from the taxpayer. I think it's a ridiculous idea, am i going to have to pay tax in order to pay people that don't actually need it? I'd rather stick with helping those that truly have nothing. | |||
| |||
The Cirrius Cybernetics Corporation will be first against the wall come the robotic uprising. | |||
| |||
"Can you explain a bit more please x It a scheme whereby every one in the country receives a regular income from the government. It’s not means tested. So available to all. At first it sounds either too expensive or too good to be true. But there are serious people considering this and some of the arguments are persuasive. One question. As the government has no money of its own, where would this money come from? Obviously from the taxpayer. I think it's a ridiculous idea, am i going to have to pay tax in order to pay people that don't actually need it? I'd rather stick with helping those that truly have nothing." Your tax money already does that, hate to break it to you... | |||
"Obviously from the taxpayer. I think it's a ridiculous idea, am i going to have to pay tax in order to pay people that don't actually need it? I'd rather stick with helping those that truly have nothing." The point is that in the near future there may be legions of people with no income whatsoever. If we don’t need call centre operatives or warehousemen, or anything else that can be automated, what do we do? | |||
"The countries where it has been implemented seem do be doing well. It would be better in the long run, for the economy aswell as the population. Unfortunately most only think short term so things get axed before they can get off the ground properly. . Where's it been implemented already?" Both Finland and Belgium have current trials, one of the best examples however in from manitoba in Canada in the 70's A town trialed ubi for 5 years It didn't cost much more than the benefits system and marked improvements were seen in early years health and learning, reduced strain on health services especially mental health increased economic activity and pupils were more likely to complete and continue education. Domestic violence rates dropped too. The devil however is in the detail, in the hands of right wing govenments ubi can be as bad a trap as the current benefits system. | |||
"To many questions to ask lol So this is paid to everyone working or not? For those not working would this replace their benefits? If this was implemented what’s to stop say landlords just increasing rent making you no better of? " Rent Controls? Better and more public housing. | |||
"And who will be paying more tax to fund this scheme? There’s an estimated £400bn a year of tax relief for the wealthy and large corporations that would be a good starting point. " This. We're not a poor country. We just have a massive social and economic imbalance that we don't talk about. | |||
| |||
"Sounds like communism, same for everybody except those that are more equal, been tried and failed across the world. Great idea, bit people are too untrustworthy, idle and greedy. " It is quite different from communism. It encourages entrepreneurs and anyone that earns additional income. Plus it operates within a parliamentary democracy. | |||
| |||
"Obviously from the taxpayer. I think it's a ridiculous idea, am i going to have to pay tax in order to pay people that don't actually need it? I'd rather stick with helping those that truly have nothing. The point is that in the near future there may be legions of people with no income whatsoever. If we don’t need call centre operatives or warehousemen, or anything else that can be automated, what do we do?" I see, i get it now but the OP mentioned that it wouldn't be means tested, everyone has a right to it but i still think my taxes should only go to the truly needy. | |||
| |||
"Obviously from the taxpayer. I think it's a ridiculous idea, am i going to have to pay tax in order to pay people that don't actually need it? I'd rather stick with helping those that truly have nothing. The point is that in the near future there may be legions of people with no income whatsoever. If we don’t need call centre operatives or warehousemen, or anything else that can be automated, what do we do?" Fix roads . Improve rail / transport systems . Maintain and build new houses . Farm land instead of having sat there doing nothing . Run exercise classes for anyone needing them . Employ qualified people to encourage and get kids to do more exercise and get them involved in football / cricket / team based sports in the afternoons and evenings . Improve neighborhood watch schemes by paying a trained group of people who live in every area to combat crime . Employ more police / nurses / doctors / surgeons . Employ people to collect discarded plastic . There are a few examples of what we can do . No one wants a life where they don’t do anything , with no purpose , and if we simply give everyone what they need with no incentive to ‘ earn ‘ it , we will end up with a totally disinterested state . No reason to learn , educate , or to make an effort to put back into society . | |||
| |||
| |||
| |||
"I’ve been reading a bit about UBI recently. Is it a good idea? Or doomed to fail? " Depends on your view of hobbes-rousseau really? | |||
"Obviously from the taxpayer. I think it's a ridiculous idea, am i going to have to pay tax in order to pay people that don't actually need it? I'd rather stick with helping those that truly have nothing. The point is that in the near future there may be legions of people with no income whatsoever. If we don’t need call centre operatives or warehousemen, or anything else that can be automated, what do we do? Fix roads . Improve rail / transport systems . Maintain and build new houses . Farm land instead of having sat there doing nothing . Run exercise classes for anyone needing them . Employ qualified people to encourage and get kids to do more exercise and get them involved in football / cricket / team based sports in the afternoons and evenings . Improve neighborhood watch schemes by paying a trained group of people who live in every area to combat crime . Employ more police / nurses / doctors / surgeons . Employ people to collect discarded plastic . There are a few examples of what we can do . No one wants a life where they don’t do anything , with no purpose , and if we simply give everyone what they need with no incentive to ‘ earn ‘ it , we will end up with a totally disinterested state . No reason to learn , educate , or to make an effort to put back into society . " This. And in particular your last paragraph. | |||
"No one wants a life where they don’t do anything , with no purpose , and if we simply give everyone what they need with no incentive to ‘ earn ‘ it , we will end up with a totally disinterested state . No reason to learn , educate , or to make an effort to put back into society . " Do you not see the inherent contradiction in what you just wrote? "No one wants a life where they don't do anything" I tend to agree. For the most part, people are motivated to do stuff. Naturally money is a primary driver, in terms of people needing to put food on the table and a roof over their heads, but actually it's far from the be-all-and-end-all - if money was the only driver, Wikipedia would not exist. People are motivated by all kinds of factors - desire for learning, development, mastery...given the freedom and option to do so, they will pursue their interests. Which is somewhat incongruous with: "if we simply give everyone what they need with no incentive to ‘ earn ‘ it , we will end up with a totally disinterested state" The reason and motivation is not to 'earn' it, but simply it is its own reward... How do you reconcile these opposing views? | |||
"No one wants a life where they don’t do anything , with no purpose , and if we simply give everyone what they need with no incentive to ‘ earn ‘ it , we will end up with a totally disinterested state . No reason to learn , educate , or to make an effort to put back into society . Do you not see the inherent contradiction in what you just wrote? "No one wants a life where they don't do anything" I tend to agree. For the most part, people are motivated to do stuff. Naturally money is a primary driver, in terms of people needing to put food on the table and a roof over their heads, but actually it's far from the be-all-and-end-all - if money was the only driver, Wikipedia would not exist. People are motivated by all kinds of factors - desire for learning, development, mastery...given the freedom and option to do so, they will pursue their interests. Which is somewhat incongruous with: "if we simply give everyone what they need with no incentive to ‘ earn ‘ it , we will end up with a totally disinterested state" The reason and motivation is not to 'earn' it, but simply it is its own reward... How do you reconcile these opposing views?" That's one for rousseau | |||
"Obviously from the taxpayer. I think it's a ridiculous idea, am i going to have to pay tax in order to pay people that don't actually need it? I'd rather stick with helping those that truly have nothing. The point is that in the near future there may be legions of people with no income whatsoever. If we don’t need call centre operatives or warehousemen, or anything else that can be automated, what do we do? Fix roads . Improve rail / transport systems . Maintain and build new houses . Farm land instead of having sat there doing nothing . Run exercise classes for anyone needing them . Employ qualified people to encourage and get kids to do more exercise and get them involved in football / cricket / team based sports in the afternoons and evenings . Improve neighborhood watch schemes by paying a trained group of people who live in every area to combat crime . Employ more police / nurses / doctors / surgeons . Employ people to collect discarded plastic . There are a few examples of what we can do . No one wants a life where they don’t do anything , with no purpose , and if we simply give everyone what they need with no incentive to ‘ earn ‘ it , we will end up with a totally disinterested state . No reason to learn , educate , or to make an effort to put back into society . This. And in particular your last paragraph. " Two for hobbes | |||
"No one wants a life where they don’t do anything , with no purpose , and if we simply give everyone what they need with no incentive to ‘ earn ‘ it , we will end up with a totally disinterested state . No reason to learn , educate , or to make an effort to put back into society . Do you not see the inherent contradiction in what you just wrote? "No one wants a life where they don't do anything" I tend to agree. For the most part, people are motivated to do stuff. Naturally money is a primary driver, in terms of people needing to put food on the table and a roof over their heads, but actually it's far from the be-all-and-end-all - if money was the only driver, Wikipedia would not exist. People are motivated by all kinds of factors - desire for learning, development, mastery...given the freedom and option to do so, they will pursue their interests. Which is somewhat incongruous with: "if we simply give everyone what they need with no incentive to ‘ earn ‘ it , we will end up with a totally disinterested state" The reason and motivation is not to 'earn' it, but simply it is its own reward... How do you reconcile these opposing views?" From a very early age we are taught a plethora of basic information , starting pre school and right up to our early twenties we are still being taught no end of stuff to hopefully give us opportunities to get better jobs , earn more money , and hopefully do something we like too . So we can all read , we all understand basic grammar , basic math , a bit of science , history , geography etc.... How soon would kids say ‘ fuck it , I don’t need to learn this shit ‘ , and we go down a road where we have a generation who are great at playing fortnite, cod , and so on , but can’t read and write ? Because if we adopt an attitude that simply says follow your dreams and we will pay for you to live while you do so , that’s what will happen . Sure there will be exceptions , but the vast majority will see it as a way to spend their lives doing exactly what they want to do , which will certainly not enhance our society . | |||
"No one wants a life where they don’t do anything , with no purpose , and if we simply give everyone what they need with no incentive to ‘ earn ‘ it , we will end up with a totally disinterested state . No reason to learn , educate , or to make an effort to put back into society . Do you not see the inherent contradiction in what you just wrote? "No one wants a life where they don't do anything" I tend to agree. For the most part, people are motivated to do stuff. Naturally money is a primary driver, in terms of people needing to put food on the table and a roof over their heads, but actually it's far from the be-all-and-end-all - if money was the only driver, Wikipedia would not exist. People are motivated by all kinds of factors - desire for learning, development, mastery...given the freedom and option to do so, they will pursue their interests. Which is somewhat incongruous with: "if we simply give everyone what they need with no incentive to ‘ earn ‘ it , we will end up with a totally disinterested state" The reason and motivation is not to 'earn' it, but simply it is its own reward... How do you reconcile these opposing views?" . We don't need to second guess this though, you simply look at some people who've spent a lifetime or in some cases three generations on benefits, there not filling there time learning brain surgery or rocket science, none of them specialise in microconidia DNA,I dunno it's like humans have a genetic instinct to do not alot when times allow them to and if anything the devil makes work for idle hands as they seem to do the opposite of what you fantasise and do completely unproductive shit instead of works of art or Shakespearean plays | |||
"No one wants a life where they don’t do anything , with no purpose , and if we simply give everyone what they need with no incentive to ‘ earn ‘ it , we will end up with a totally disinterested state . No reason to learn , educate , or to make an effort to put back into society . Do you not see the inherent contradiction in what you just wrote? "No one wants a life where they don't do anything" I tend to agree. For the most part, people are motivated to do stuff. Naturally money is a primary driver, in terms of people needing to put food on the table and a roof over their heads, but actually it's far from the be-all-and-end-all - if money was the only driver, Wikipedia would not exist. People are motivated by all kinds of factors - desire for learning, development, mastery...given the freedom and option to do so, they will pursue their interests. Which is somewhat incongruous with: "if we simply give everyone what they need with no incentive to ‘ earn ‘ it , we will end up with a totally disinterested state" The reason and motivation is not to 'earn' it, but simply it is its own reward... How do you reconcile these opposing views?. We don't need to second guess this though, you simply look at some people who've spent a lifetime or in some cases three generations on benefits, there not filling there time learning brain surgery or rocket science, none of them specialise in microconidia DNA,I dunno it's like humans have a genetic instinct to do not alot when times allow them to and if anything the devil makes work for idle hands as they seem to do the opposite of what you fantasise and do completely unproductive shit instead of works of art or Shakespearean plays "Four for hobbes. | |||
| |||
"We may have to do something like this eventually. If we automate every job we can there could be no jobs to have. " This is the fourth industrial revolution. They said that about the last two. They could be right this time as there is one fundamental difference about this one. But i don't expect it to happen in my lifetime. | |||
"We may have to do something like this eventually. If we automate every job we can there could be no jobs to have. " And yet we have less unemployment now than ever before ! People will have so much time to enjoy leisure activities so that will flourish . As will so many others as I outlined in a previous post . God forbid we just give everyone everything they need for nothing in return . No one would choose to do most of the menial jobs if they didn’t have to . Nurses , cleaners , refuse collectors , catering , etc...... | |||
"We may have to do something like this eventually. If we automate every job we can there could be no jobs to have. And yet we have less unemployment now than ever before ! " We also work less hours on average than ever before. For a long time, we'd simply be able to keep employment up by reducing the maximum hours people can work, a three day working week wouldn't be so bad. | |||
"We may have to do something like this eventually. If we automate every job we can there could be no jobs to have. And yet we have less unemployment now than ever before ! We also work less hours on average than ever before. For a long time, we'd simply be able to keep employment up by reducing the maximum hours people can work, a three day working week wouldn't be so bad. " Thereby giving us more time to enjoy leisure activities , creating more employment | |||
| |||
"We may have to do something like this eventually. If we automate every job we can there could be no jobs to have. This is the fourth industrial revolution. They said that about the last two. They could be right this time as there is one fundamental difference about this one. But i don't expect it to happen in my lifetime. " Things are moving fast again right now. Who knows what will happen in our lifetime. | |||
"We may have to do something like this eventually. If we automate every job we can there could be no jobs to have. This is the fourth industrial revolution. They said that about the last two. They could be right this time as there is one fundamental difference about this one. But i don't expect it to happen in my lifetime. Things are moving fast again right now. Who knows what will happen in our lifetime. " The past is the best predictor of the future | |||
"We may have to do something like this eventually. If we automate every job we can there could be no jobs to have. This is the fourth industrial revolution. They said that about the last two. They could be right this time as there is one fundamental difference about this one. But i don't expect it to happen in my lifetime. Things are moving fast again right now. Who knows what will happen in our lifetime. " . We'll die wishing we'd had longer and done some shit we couldn't be arsed doing when we thought we'd got plenty of time to do it!. | |||
"From a very early age we are taught a plethora of basic information , starting pre school and right up to our early twenties we are still being taught no end of stuff to hopefully give us opportunities to get better jobs , earn more money , and hopefully do something we like too . So we can all read , we all understand basic grammar , basic math , a bit of science , history , geography etc.... How soon would kids say ‘ fuck it , I don’t need to learn this shit ‘ , and we go down a road where we have a generation who are great at playing fortnite, cod , and so on , but can’t read and write ? Because if we adopt an attitude that simply says follow your dreams and we will pay for you to live while you do so , that’s what will happen . Sure there will be exceptions , but the vast majority will see it as a way to spend their lives doing exactly what they want to do , which will certainly not enhance our society ." I'd say that as a nation (and perhaps a species as a whole, I don't know about other countries), we have quite a dysfunctional relationship with education. We are as a species naturally inclined towards curiosity, learning and wisdom - so much so they put it in the name. Observe any pre-school child and you will see that unbridled thirst for knowledge manifesting itself almost on a minute-by-minute basis... Observe the same child after a few years in school and generally it's gone. They've had it taught out of them. Our education system is utterly anachronistic, designed for a 20th century workforce based upon 19th century ideals. The traditional model of learning and regurgitating facts and names and figures is utterly redundant when you consider we have the entirety of human knowledge in our pockets. Realistically what we need from a modern education system is not the ability to retain information, but the ability to discern bullshit from legitimate information. However, if you want to get all tinfoil hat for a moment, you might argue that the government does not want a highly educated workforce, capable of critical evaluation and inquisitive in nature - it wants a population just smart enough to push the buttons but too dumb to question why. Kids these days - and not just kids, but society in general - do not value education as an end in itself, merely as a means to unlocking earning potential, getting a better job etc. Gone are the days of cherishing knowledge. Could you imagine the likes of Faraday - one of the most significant and influential figures in science and fundamental to the existence of the modern-world as we know it - being a product of today's society? A poor, working-class lad whose thirst for knowledge led him to become a self-taught polymath, despite having to leave formal education at an early age, yet went on to discover many things that underpin our society as we know it... Education, intelligence, understanding - none of these things are afforded any particular value in the general psyche of the country. We try and sell kids the story of "work hard at school, and go to university, and then you'll get a good job" but they know it's bollocks just as much as we do. But ultimately, if UBI was implemented properly, those that wanted to sit on their arses playing COD would end up wanting to maximise their earning potential, because they couldn't afford all the latest shit and keep up with their mates | |||
"No one wants a life where they don’t do anything , with no purpose , and if we simply give everyone what they need with no incentive to ‘ earn ‘ it , we will end up with a totally disinterested state . No reason to learn , educate , or to make an effort to put back into society . Do you not see the inherent contradiction in what you just wrote? "No one wants a life where they don't do anything" I tend to agree. For the most part, people are motivated to do stuff. Naturally money is a primary driver, in terms of people needing to put food on the table and a roof over their heads, but actually it's far from the be-all-and-end-all - if money was the only driver, Wikipedia would not exist. People are motivated by all kinds of factors - desire for learning, development, mastery...given the freedom and option to do so, they will pursue their interests. Which is somewhat incongruous with: "if we simply give everyone what they need with no incentive to ‘ earn ‘ it , we will end up with a totally disinterested state" The reason and motivation is not to 'earn' it, but simply it is its own reward... How do you reconcile these opposing views?. We don't need to second guess this though, you simply look at some people who've spent a lifetime or in some cases three generations on benefits, there not filling there time learning brain surgery or rocket science, none of them specialise in microconidia DNA,I dunno it's like humans have a genetic instinct to do not alot when times allow them to and if anything the devil makes work for idle hands as they seem to do the opposite of what you fantasise and do completely unproductive shit instead of works of art or Shakespearean plays "Those people are the tiny minority and completely anomalous. Only and idiot would base policy decisions upon such obvious outliers | |||
"While the idea has it's positives, there will always be those who take advantage of the system. Everything has it's flaws. " ummm does the system ,not take advantage of us? yep no one is perfect .. | |||
"And who will be paying more tax to fund this scheme? There’s an estimated £400bn a year of tax relief for the wealthy and large corporations that would be a good starting point. " Good point | |||
"We may have to do something like this eventually. If we automate every job we can there could be no jobs to have. This is the fourth industrial revolution. They said that about the last two. They could be right this time as there is one fundamental difference about this one. But i don't expect it to happen in my lifetime. Things are moving fast again right now. Who knows what will happen in our lifetime. The past is the best predictor of the future " Well all be locked in ice or dying of thirst soon so it probably doesn’t matter anyhow  | |||
| |||
"I’ve been reading a bit about UBI recently. Is it a good idea? Or doomed to fail? " Doomed to fail, there will be people who spend it on luxuries and then claim to be hard up and the benefits system will pick up the tab. This country needs to stop people thinking the benefits system is a way of life and go out and get a job and EARN and SAVE for what you want If you can't afford you don't have it | |||
"I’ve been reading a bit about UBI recently. Is it a good idea? Or doomed to fail? Doomed to fail, there will be people who spend it on luxuries and then claim to be hard up and the benefits system will pick up the tab. This country needs to stop people thinking the benefits system is a way of life and go out and get a job and EARN and SAVE for what you want If you can't afford you don't have it " If UBI were implemented as intended, the benefits system would not exist | |||
"And who will be paying more tax to fund this scheme? There’s an estimated £400bn a year of tax relief for the wealthy and large corporations that would be a good starting point. Good point" So the money tree as normal  | |||
| |||
"We may have to do something like this eventually. If we automate every job we can there could be no jobs to have. This is the fourth industrial revolution. They said that about the last two. They could be right this time as there is one fundamental difference about this one. But i don't expect it to happen in my lifetime. Things are moving fast again right now. Who knows what will happen in our lifetime. The past is the best predictor of the future Well all be locked in ice or dying of thirst soon so it probably doesn’t matter anyhow "At least we'll die with iPhones in our pockets and memories of Dr Phil to cherish. We lived better than those before us and that's all anyone can ask. | |||
"I’ve been reading a bit about UBI recently. Is it a good idea? Or doomed to fail? " Great idea will stimulate the economy. The Tories have contempt for the poor there needs to be a rebalancing xx | |||
| |||
"And who will be paying more tax to fund this scheme? Maybe getting Amazon to pay its fair share of tax is a start ?" | |||
" We are as a species naturally inclined towards curiosity, learning and wisdom - so much so they put it in the name. Observe any pre-school child and you will see that unbridled thirst for knowledge manifesting itself almost on a minute-by-minute basis... Observe the same child after a few years in school and generally it's gone. They've had it taught out of them. Our education system is utterly anachronistic, designed for a 20th century workforce based upon 19th century ideals. The traditional model of learning and regurgitating facts and names and figures is utterly redundant when you consider we have the entirety of human knowledge in our pockets. Realistically what we need from a modern education system is not the ability to retain information, but the ability to discern bullshit from legitimate information. However, if you want to get all tinfoil hat for a moment, you might argue that the government does not want a highly educated workforce, capable of critical evaluation and inquisitive in nature - it wants a population just smart enough to push the buttons but too dumb to question why. " Sorry but there's a massive contradiction here. You simply can't distinguish bullshit unless there is a baseline of facts that you can regurgitate without resorting to Google. You need a mental model of the world in order to filter whether new information goes into it. It's precisely because schools aren't doing this that people are more and more prone to idiotic beliefs. | |||
"That whole "there's no magic money tree" bollocks is so infuriating, when point of fact there actually is... We're a sovereign nation with our own currency. We absolutely *do* have a magic money tree, it's called the Bank of England!" Right so we should just print money to fund everything we want. What could possibly go wrong with that | |||
"That whole "there's no magic money tree" bollocks is so infuriating, when point of fact there actually is... We're a sovereign nation with our own currency. We absolutely *do* have a magic money tree, it's called the Bank of England! Right so we should just print money to fund everything we want. What could possibly go wrong with that "I'm not saying it's the right thing to do, I'm just saying it's factually inaccurate to claim it doesn't exist. | |||
"We may have to do something like this eventually. If we automate every job we can there could be no jobs to have. This is the fourth industrial revolution. They said that about the last two. They could be right this time as there is one fundamental difference about this one. But i don't expect it to happen in my lifetime. Things are moving fast again right now. Who knows what will happen in our lifetime. The past is the best predictor of the future Well all be locked in ice or dying of thirst soon so it probably doesn’t matter anyhow
At least we'll die with iPhones in our pockets and memories of Dr Phil to cherish. We lived better than those before us and that's all anyone can ask. "I’m hoping I’ll die getting spit roasted.  | |||
"That whole "there's no magic money tree" bollocks is so infuriating, when point of fact there actually is... We're a sovereign nation with our own currency. We absolutely *do* have a magic money tree, it's called the Bank of England! Right so we should just print money to fund everything we want. What could possibly go wrong with that
I'm not saying it's the right thing to do, I'm just saying it's factually inaccurate to claim it doesn't exist."No that's just an obtuse linguistic trick. The first formal promise I can find of politicians to close the tax gap is in the 1997 Labour manifesto. The gap has not changed significantly from then. 21 years people have been buying the same bullshit story at what point do they say "hmm the money really should have turned up by now" | |||
"We may have to do something like this eventually. If we automate every job we can there could be no jobs to have. This is the fourth industrial revolution. They said that about the last two. They could be right this time as there is one fundamental difference about this one. But i don't expect it to happen in my lifetime. Things are moving fast again right now. Who knows what will happen in our lifetime. The past is the best predictor of the future Well all be locked in ice or dying of thirst soon so it probably doesn’t matter anyhow
At least we'll die with iPhones in our pockets and memories of Dr Phil to cherish. We lived better than those before us and that's all anyone can ask.
I’m hoping I’ll die getting spit roasted. "I hope i delete all my porn before i die | |||
"I’ve been reading a bit about UBI recently. Is it a good idea? Or doomed to fail? Doomed to fail, there will be people who spend it on luxuries and then claim to be hard up and the benefits system will pick up the tab. This country needs to stop people thinking the benefits system is a way of life and go out and get a job and EARN and SAVE for what you want If you can't afford you don't have it If UBI were implemented as intended, the benefits system would not exist" It would, people would still over spend and still need benefits. | |||
"Sorry but there's a massive contradiction here. You simply can't distinguish bullshit unless there is a baseline of facts that you can regurgitate without resorting to Google. You need a mental model of the world in order to filter whether new information goes into it. It's precisely because schools aren't doing this that people are more and more prone to idiotic beliefs. " I think that's a fair point, there needs to be a frame of reference - but if someone can be taught how to identify a legitimate source of information, verify its veracity etc - that methodology can be applied across the board | |||
"No one wants a life where they don’t do anything , with no purpose , and if we simply give everyone what they need with no incentive to ‘ earn ‘ it , we will end up with a totally disinterested state . No reason to learn , educate , or to make an effort to put back into society . Do you not see the inherent contradiction in what you just wrote? "No one wants a life where they don't do anything" I tend to agree. For the most part, people are motivated to do stuff. Naturally money is a primary driver, in terms of people needing to put food on the table and a roof over their heads, but actually it's far from the be-all-and-end-all - if money was the only driver, Wikipedia would not exist. People are motivated by all kinds of factors - desire for learning, development, mastery...given the freedom and option to do so, they will pursue their interests. Which is somewhat incongruous with: "if we simply give everyone what they need with no incentive to ‘ earn ‘ it , we will end up with a totally disinterested state" The reason and motivation is not to 'earn' it, but simply it is its own reward... How do you reconcile these opposing views?. We don't need to second guess this though, you simply look at some people who've spent a lifetime or in some cases three generations on benefits, there not filling there time learning brain surgery or rocket science, none of them specialise in microconidia DNA,I dunno it's like humans have a genetic instinct to do not alot when times allow them to and if anything the devil makes work for idle hands as they seem to do the opposite of what you fantasise and do completely unproductive shit instead of works of art or Shakespearean plays
Those people are the tiny minority and completely anomalous.
Only and idiot would base policy decisions upon such obvious outliers". Honestly if I were you I'd have a long hard look at your beliefs. Firstly Faraday was in a shit job with a shit standard of life (are you saying that's what ubi should give?). Secondly money wasn't his only motive your right, he was a bizarre Christan sect that believed in a unifying force from God hence is utter fascination in electro magnetism (are you suggesting this for ubi working to inspire people). Thirdly yes they are the minority of benefit uses, however I used them as an example because I take it you'd be proposing that ubi be given for life and not a short period like the majority of people who use benefits??. So a lifelong benefit like ubi I'm concluding needs to be compared to somebody who's spent a lifetime on benefits already? That seems fair doesn't it, when you look at the people who have done this like I said, they really really don't in the vast majority of cases turn out anything like Micheal fucking Faraday and honestly concluding they would makes me think your the "idiot basing policy on outliers". D- minus for effort though  | |||
"Sorry but there's a massive contradiction here. You simply can't distinguish bullshit unless there is a baseline of facts that you can regurgitate without resorting to Google. You need a mental model of the world in order to filter whether new information goes into it. It's precisely because schools aren't doing this that people are more and more prone to idiotic beliefs. I think that's a fair point, there needs to be a frame of reference - but if someone can be taught how to identify a legitimate source of information, verify its veracity etc - that methodology can be applied across the board" I agree with the spirit of what you're saying. The problem these days is that in many areas, proper scientific enquiry is dead because funding is only allocated to subjects deemed politically correct at universities that are 80% left wing, as an average, which basically means 100% left wing in certain subjects. | |||
"I’ve been reading a bit about UBI recently. Is it a good idea? Or doomed to fail? Doomed to fail, there will be people who spend it on luxuries and then claim to be hard up and the benefits system will pick up the tab. This country needs to stop people thinking the benefits system is a way of life and go out and get a job and EARN and SAVE for what you want If you can't afford you don't have it If UBI were implemented as intended, the benefits system would not exist It would, people would still over spend and still need benefits. " It wouldn't. A Universal Basic Income is supposed to be enough to provide everyone with enough money for a basic level of subsistence. It replaces the benefits system in its entirety. The reality might actually be slightly different, with allowances made for those who were severely disabled etc, but in principle the idea is to have no benefits whatsoever and a flat amount paid to everyone | |||
"That whole "there's no magic money tree" bollocks is so infuriating, when point of fact there actually is... We're a sovereign nation with our own currency. We absolutely *do* have a magic money tree, it's called the Bank of England! Right so we should just print money to fund everything we want. What could possibly go wrong with that
I'm not saying it's the right thing to do, I'm just saying it's factually inaccurate to claim it doesn't exist.". Jesus Christ man, learn something about monetary policy before talking any more nonsense,94% of money is created from private debt not government printing therefore it has value unlike what printing money has, no value, the more you print the less value it has, follow this through and you've got the Zimbabwe dollar. Good luck with your economic ubi miracle fantasy though, you'll need it | |||
| |||
"We may have to do something like this eventually. If we automate every job we can there could be no jobs to have. This is the fourth industrial revolution. They said that about the last two. They could be right this time as there is one fundamental difference about this one. But i don't expect it to happen in my lifetime. Things are moving fast again right now. Who knows what will happen in our lifetime. The past is the best predictor of the future Well all be locked in ice or dying of thirst soon so it probably doesn’t matter anyhow
At least we'll die with iPhones in our pockets and memories of Dr Phil to cherish. We lived better than those before us and that's all anyone can ask.
I’m hoping I’ll die getting spit roasted.
I hope i delete all my porn before i die "Perhaps I ought to clear out my toy draw  | |||
"No one wants a life where they don’t do anything , with no purpose , and if we simply give everyone what they need with no incentive to ‘ earn ‘ it , we will end up with a totally disinterested state . No reason to learn , educate , or to make an effort to put back into society . Do you not see the inherent contradiction in what you just wrote? "No one wants a life where they don't do anything" I tend to agree. For the most part, people are motivated to do stuff. Naturally money is a primary driver, in terms of people needing to put food on the table and a roof over their heads, but actually it's far from the be-all-and-end-all - if money was the only driver, Wikipedia would not exist. People are motivated by all kinds of factors - desire for learning, development, mastery...given the freedom and option to do so, they will pursue their interests. Which is somewhat incongruous with: "if we simply give everyone what they need with no incentive to ‘ earn ‘ it , we will end up with a totally disinterested state" The reason and motivation is not to 'earn' it, but simply it is its own reward... How do you reconcile these opposing views?. We don't need to second guess this though, you simply look at some people who've spent a lifetime or in some cases three generations on benefits, there not filling there time learning brain surgery or rocket science, none of them specialise in microconidia DNA,I dunno it's like humans have a genetic instinct to do not alot when times allow them to and if anything the devil makes work for idle hands as they seem to do the opposite of what you fantasise and do completely unproductive shit instead of works of art or Shakespearean plays
Those people are the tiny minority and completely anomalous.
Only and idiot would base policy decisions upon such obvious outliers.
Honestly if I were you I'd have a long hard look at your beliefs.
Firstly Faraday was in a shit job with a shit standard of life (are you saying that's what ubi should give?).
Secondly money wasn't his only motive your right, he was a bizarre Christan sect that believed in a unifying force from God hence is utter fascination in electro magnetism (are you suggesting this for ubi working to inspire people).
Thirdly yes they are the minority of benefit uses, however I used them as an example because I take it you'd be proposing that ubi be given for life and not a short period like the majority of people who use benefits??.
So a lifelong benefit like ubi I'm concluding needs to be compared to somebody who's spent a lifetime on benefits already? That seems fair doesn't it, when you look at the people who have done this like I said, they really really don't in the vast majority of cases turn out anything like Micheal fucking Faraday and honestly concluding they would makes me think your the "idiot basing policy on outliers".
D- minus for effort though "Ummm...so you took my other post where I was discussing Faraday as an example of the contrast in the societal attitude towards education then and now - and you've shoehorned that into your argument about UBI? And then had the temerity to grade me at a D- for effort? It's a completely different conversation. Given the frequency with which it's trotted out on the internet, I'm rather loathe to even mention the word, but this whole post is just one great big strawman. Maybe come back to me when you're capable of relevance, eh? | |||
| |||
"That whole "there's no magic money tree" bollocks is so infuriating, when point of fact there actually is... We're a sovereign nation with our own currency. We absolutely *do* have a magic money tree, it's called the Bank of England! Right so we should just print money to fund everything we want. What could possibly go wrong with that
I'm not saying it's the right thing to do, I'm just saying it's factually inaccurate to claim it doesn't exist..
Jesus Christ man, learn something about monetary policy before talking any more nonsense,94% of money is created from private debt not government printing therefore it has value unlike what printing money has, no value, the more you print the less value it has, follow this through and you've got the Zimbabwe dollar.
Good luck with your economic ubi miracle fantasy though, you'll need it "I know perfectly well how it works thanks. I'm aware of endogenous money and I know the inflationary risks involved in printing money willy-nilly (though QE actually seems to put a nail in that theory to some extent) However, my issue is that the phrase "there's no magic money tree" is woefully inaccurate. There absolutely *is* a magic money tree and when they feel like shaking it (as with QE) it totally does exist | |||
"No one wants a life where they don’t do anything , with no purpose , and if we simply give everyone what they need with no incentive to ‘ earn ‘ it , we will end up with a totally disinterested state . No reason to learn , educate , or to make an effort to put back into society . Do you not see the inherent contradiction in what you just wrote? "No one wants a life where they don't do anything" I tend to agree. For the most part, people are motivated to do stuff. Naturally money is a primary driver, in terms of people needing to put food on the table and a roof over their heads, but actually it's far from the be-all-and-end-all - if money was the only driver, Wikipedia would not exist. People are motivated by all kinds of factors - desire for learning, development, mastery...given the freedom and option to do so, they will pursue their interests. Which is somewhat incongruous with: "if we simply give everyone what they need with no incentive to ‘ earn ‘ it , we will end up with a totally disinterested state" The reason and motivation is not to 'earn' it, but simply it is its own reward... How do you reconcile these opposing views?. We don't need to second guess this though, you simply look at some people who've spent a lifetime or in some cases three generations on benefits, there not filling there time learning brain surgery or rocket science, none of them specialise in microconidia DNA,I dunno it's like humans have a genetic instinct to do not alot when times allow them to and if anything the devil makes work for idle hands as they seem to do the opposite of what you fantasise and do completely unproductive shit instead of works of art or Shakespearean plays
Those people are the tiny minority and completely anomalous.
Only and idiot would base policy decisions upon such obvious outliers.
Honestly if I were you I'd have a long hard look at your beliefs.
Firstly Faraday was in a shit job with a shit standard of life (are you saying that's what ubi should give?).
Secondly money wasn't his only motive your right, he was a bizarre Christan sect that believed in a unifying force from God hence is utter fascination in electro magnetism (are you suggesting this for ubi working to inspire people).
Thirdly yes they are the minority of benefit uses, however I used them as an example because I take it you'd be proposing that ubi be given for life and not a short period like the majority of people who use benefits??.
So a lifelong benefit like ubi I'm concluding needs to be compared to somebody who's spent a lifetime on benefits already? That seems fair doesn't it, when you look at the people who have done this like I said, they really really don't in the vast majority of cases turn out anything like Micheal fucking Faraday and honestly concluding they would makes me think your the "idiot basing policy on outliers".
D- minus for effort though
Ummm...so you took my other post where I was discussing Faraday as an example of the contrast in the societal attitude towards education then and now - and you've shoehorned that into your argument about UBI?
And then had the temerity to grade me at a D- for effort?
It's a completely different conversation. Given the frequency with which it's trotted out on the internet, I'm rather loathe to even mention the word, but this whole post is just one great big strawman.
Maybe come back to me when you're capable of relevance, eh?". I think you've read to many blogs and not enough books. That's about as much relevance as I can give you. | |||
"I agree with the spirit of what you're saying. The problem these days is that in many areas, proper scientific enquiry is dead because funding is only allocated to subjects deemed politically correct at universities that are 80% left wing, as an average, which basically means 100% left wing in certain subjects. " True. Cuts both ways though, doesn't it? A huge number of politicians of all stripes seem to come through PPE at Oxford, or some other similar course, in which neoclassical economics is presented as the one true version of the truth. Whether you're Gordon Brown, Ed Balls, Phillip Hammond or one of the Orange Book Lib Dems, there's a disturbing homogeneity of economic thought that has run the country for a long time... | |||
"I think you've read to many blogs and not enough books. That's about as much relevance as I can give you. " I think you haven't read my posts properly, but hey ho | |||
"Finland has abandoned it. It’s not as attractive as it sounds. Much touted by those with rather fanciful perceptions of the hard realities. For a dispassionate analysis of the pros and cons have a look at the Joseph Rowntree discussion. Their conclusion was that its likely impact would be to increase net poverty ( and addressing poverty is what they exist to campaign for). " Not quite true. The experiment was always planned to end in 2018, while they assess the results which are scheduled for publication in 2019. | |||
| |||
"I’ve been reading a bit about UBI recently. Is it a good idea? Or doomed to fail? " Great idea.. What about Universal Bonking next.. Everyone gets at least one twice a week? That'd get me vote.. wheres Theresa gone.. | |||
"Who in this thread is a economist? Or who has studied economics in school? If you have only watched the news.... I’m going enlighten everyone..... You never want to give the government more control than they already have over your money..... When governments have more power over money public spending goes up.... but wait for it..... Inflation goes through the roof.... they love to print money to fund their over spending... Do you know why? Humans are greedy and susceptible to corruption. Look at Peronism in Argentina , and Zuma in South Africa for instance... A dirty secret Finland , Sweden, and Norway don’t tell the world is that they have Sovereign wealth funds that buy British and American bonds that pay for their socialist governments... Capitalism isn’t perfect..... but it is the only economic system that gives every citizen a equal chance of becoming wealthy..... Only in Capitalism can a poor person become rich without the need to be in Government... Try becoming wealthy in China or Russia without being connected to the government..... But Socialism can work if you have a population of 5 million or less... But how would you cap birth rates? " You can't get wealthy in China unless you're connected to the government? What's your evidence for this? | |||
"Who in this thread is a economist? Or who has studied economics in school? If you have only watched the news.... I’m going enlighten everyone..... You never want to give the government more control than they already have over your money..... When governments have more power over money public spending goes up.... but wait for it..... Inflation goes through the roof.... they love to print money to fund their over spending... Do you know why? Humans are greedy and susceptible to corruption. Look at Peronism in Argentina , and Zuma in South Africa for instance... A dirty secret Finland , Sweden, and Norway don’t tell the world is that they have Sovereign wealth funds that buy British and American bonds that pay for their socialist governments... Capitalism isn’t perfect..... but it is the only economic system that gives every citizen a equal chance of becoming wealthy..... Only in Capitalism can a poor person become rich without the need to be in Government... Try becoming wealthy in China or Russia without being connected to the government..... But Socialism can work if you have a population of 5 million or less... But how would you cap birth rates? You can't get wealthy in China unless you're connected to the government? What's your evidence for this? "I have no evidence for this.... I’m just making up random facts on a forum in the UK to impress people to have sex with me... Or I might just be the head of global trading for the Asian markets for one of the biggest financial companies in the world..... My point still stands..... any program that allows the government to print money will never work.... | |||
"Who in this thread is a economist? Or who has studied economics in school? If you have only watched the news.... I’m going enlighten everyone..... You never want to give the government more control than they already have over your money..... When governments have more power over money public spending goes up.... but wait for it..... Inflation goes through the roof.... they love to print money to fund their over spending... Do you know why? Humans are greedy and susceptible to corruption. Look at Peronism in Argentina , and Zuma in South Africa for instance... A dirty secret Finland , Sweden, and Norway don’t tell the world is that they have Sovereign wealth funds that buy British and American bonds that pay for their socialist governments... Capitalism isn’t perfect..... but it is the only economic system that gives every citizen a equal chance of becoming wealthy..... Only in Capitalism can a poor person become rich without the need to be in Government... Try becoming wealthy in China or Russia without being connected to the government..... But Socialism can work if you have a population of 5 million or less... But how would you cap birth rates? You can't get wealthy in China unless you're connected to the government? What's your evidence for this?
I have no evidence for this.... I’m just making up random facts on a forum in the UK to impress people to have sex with me...
Or I might just be the head of global trading for the Asian markets for one of the biggest financial companies in the world.....
My point still stands..... any program that allows the government to print money will never work....
"Well depending on your interpretation of wealthy, I'd say you're absolutely making it up. I've met guys that were basically dirt-poor peasants from the Chinese countryside who have made enough money inside of two years to be scanning around in a brand new Range Rover and building a mansion back home for their family. They weren't even remotely connected to the government and all they did was grease the right palms. That said, for a nominally Communist country, there are parts of China that are probably the closest thing to a true free-market that we'll ever see. Your whole "Socialism only works for populations under 5M" thing kinda falls down when you get to Vietnam though, huh? | |||
"I agree with the spirit of what you're saying. The problem these days is that in many areas, proper scientific enquiry is dead because funding is only allocated to subjects deemed politically correct at universities that are 80% left wing, as an average, which basically means 100% left wing in certain subjects. True. Cuts both ways though, doesn't it? A huge number of politicians of all stripes seem to come through PPE at Oxford, or some other similar course, in which neoclassical economics is presented as the one true version of the truth. Whether you're Gordon Brown, Ed Balls, Phillip Hammond or one of the Orange Book Lib Dems, there's a disturbing homogeneity of economic thought that has run the country for a long time..." I do loath the entire concept of a PPE course. You can usually tell when people have surface deep knowledge of complex subjects. Tale tell signs are that they know GDP is important but don't really grasp the flaws in how it's calculated and how that can give a false impression of what's going on. Although economics is a degenerate subject which is unable to produce anything of value since they started awarding Nobel prizes for utter crap like the Black–Scholes formula. Which is essentially beautiful maths and functionally useless. Behavioural economics, I like, but they had to give it a special name to distinguish from the kind of bullshit that freely flows out of chicago. | |||
"Who in this thread is a economist? Or who has studied economics in school? If you have only watched the news.... I’m going enlighten everyone..... You never want to give the government more control than they already have over your money..... When governments have more power over money public spending goes up.... but wait for it..... Inflation goes through the roof.... they love to print money to fund their over spending... Do you know why? Humans are greedy and susceptible to corruption. Look at Peronism in Argentina , and Zuma in South Africa for instance... A dirty secret Finland , Sweden, and Norway don’t tell the world is that they have Sovereign wealth funds that buy British and American bonds that pay for their socialist governments... Capitalism isn’t perfect..... but it is the only economic system that gives every citizen a equal chance of becoming wealthy..... Only in Capitalism can a poor person become rich without the need to be in Government... Try becoming wealthy in China or Russia without being connected to the government..... But Socialism can work if you have a population of 5 million or less... But how would you cap birth rates? You can't get wealthy in China unless you're connected to the government? What's your evidence for this?
I have no evidence for this.... I’m just making up random facts on a forum in the UK to impress people to have sex with me...
Or I might just be the head of global trading for the Asian markets for one of the biggest financial companies in the world.....
My point still stands..... any program that allows the government to print money will never work....
Well depending on your interpretation of wealthy, I'd say you're absolutely making it up.
I've met guys that were basically dirt-poor peasants from the Chinese countryside who have made enough money inside of two years to be scanning around in a brand new Range Rover and building a mansion back home for their family.
They weren't even remotely connected to the government and all they did was grease the right palms.
That said, for a nominally Communist country, there are parts of China that are probably the closest thing to a true free-market that we'll ever see.
Your whole "Socialism only works for populations under 5M" thing kinda falls down when you get to Vietnam though, huh?"So greasing the right palms doesn’t lead back to the government? Ok please teach me something...... What billionaire or Millionaire in China or Vietnam does not have any connection to government in any form? I will say this again ... governments printing money and handling out to citizens..... will always lead to inflation and corruption..... Please open a history book | |||
"Who in this thread is a economist? Or who has studied economics in school? If you have only watched the news.... I’m going enlighten everyone..... You never want to give the government more control than they already have over your money..... When governments have more power over money public spending goes up.... but wait for it..... Inflation goes through the roof.... they love to print money to fund their over spending... Do you know why? Humans are greedy and susceptible to corruption. Look at Peronism in Argentina , and Zuma in South Africa for instance... A dirty secret Finland , Sweden, and Norway don’t tell the world is that they have Sovereign wealth funds that buy British and American bonds that pay for their socialist governments... Capitalism isn’t perfect..... but it is the only economic system that gives every citizen a equal chance of becoming wealthy..... Only in Capitalism can a poor person become rich without the need to be in Government... Try becoming wealthy in China or Russia without being connected to the government..... But Socialism can work if you have a population of 5 million or less... But how would you cap birth rates? You can't get wealthy in China unless you're connected to the government? What's your evidence for this?
I have no evidence for this.... I’m just making up random facts on a forum in the UK to impress people to have sex with me...
Or I might just be the head of global trading for the Asian markets for one of the biggest financial companies in the world.....
My point still stands..... any program that allows the government to print money will never work....
Well depending on your interpretation of wealthy, I'd say you're absolutely making it up.
I've met guys that were basically dirt-poor peasants from the Chinese countryside who have made enough money inside of two years to be scanning around in a brand new Range Rover and building a mansion back home for their family.
They weren't even remotely connected to the government and all they did was grease the right palms.
That said, for a nominally Communist country, there are parts of China that are probably the closest thing to a true free-market that we'll ever see.
Your whole "Socialism only works for populations under 5M" thing kinda falls down when you get to Vietnam though, huh?"It's a statement of hyperbole, I don't think he was challenging you to find any exceptions. Fuck me, if you owned a house in Shenzhen, Shanghai or the inner zones of Beijing then you could get rich just holding onto it in the right years. But that doesn't change the fact that when you look at the super rich in China, the people with over £25m rather than £1m, trying to find one without party connections is like looking for a conservative gender studies professor. | |||
"Who in this thread is a economist? Or who has studied economics in school? " No, yes. I wouldn't value that highly though. The whole discipline is corrupted to abstract maths and simply doesn't produce models that are emprically valid. | |||
"Who in this thread is a economist? Or who has studied economics in school? If you have only watched the news.... I’m going enlighten everyone..... You never want to give the government more control than they already have over your money..... When governments have more power over money public spending goes up.... but wait for it..... Inflation goes through the roof.... they love to print money to fund their over spending... Do you know why? Humans are greedy and susceptible to corruption. Look at Peronism in Argentina , and Zuma in South Africa for instance... A dirty secret Finland , Sweden, and Norway don’t tell the world is that they have Sovereign wealth funds that buy British and American bonds that pay for their socialist governments... Capitalism isn’t perfect..... but it is the only economic system that gives every citizen a equal chance of becoming wealthy..... Only in Capitalism can a poor person become rich without the need to be in Government... Try becoming wealthy in China or Russia without being connected to the government..... But Socialism can work if you have a population of 5 million or less... But how would you cap birth rates? You can't get wealthy in China unless you're connected to the government? What's your evidence for this?
I have no evidence for this.... I’m just making up random facts on a forum in the UK to impress people to have sex with me...
Or I might just be the head of global trading for the Asian markets for one of the biggest financial companies in the world.....
My point still stands..... any program that allows the government to print money will never work....
Well depending on your interpretation of wealthy, I'd say you're absolutely making it up.
I've met guys that were basically dirt-poor peasants from the Chinese countryside who have made enough money inside of two years to be scanning around in a brand new Range Rover and building a mansion back home for their family.
They weren't even remotely connected to the government and all they did was grease the right palms.
That said, for a nominally Communist country, there are parts of China that are probably the closest thing to a true free-market that we'll ever see.
Your whole "Socialism only works for populations under 5M" thing kinda falls down when you get to Vietnam though, huh?
So greasing the right palms doesn’t lead back to the government?
Ok please teach me something......
What billionaire or Millionaire in China or Vietnam does not have any connection to government in any form?
I will say this again ... governments printing money and handling out to citizens..... will always lead to inflation and corruption.....
Please open a history book "In which case, everything you say is just as applicable to Capitalist countries. Most billionaires in this country grease the palms of our politicians - we're every bit as corrupt as these third world shitholes we like to look down our noses at - we're just much more polished at it, we've codified it and made laws out of it so it seems above board... It's like the saying goes: "In Communism, man exploits man. In Capitalism it's the other way round..." I'm not the one rolling out the trite soundbites about Capitalism being the only system that works and "Oooooh, save me from a government that wants more control of my money" so any time you wanna climb down off your high horse and quit the glib jibes about history is fine with me...or carry on, fill your boots. No bother to me | |||
"I agree with the spirit of what you're saying. The problem these days is that in many areas, proper scientific enquiry is dead because funding is only allocated to subjects deemed politically correct at universities that are 80% left wing, as an average, which basically means 100% left wing in certain subjects. True. Cuts both ways though, doesn't it? A huge number of politicians of all stripes seem to come through PPE at Oxford, or some other similar course, in which neoclassical economics is presented as the one true version of the truth. Whether you're Gordon Brown, Ed Balls, Phillip Hammond or one of the Orange Book Lib Dems, there's a disturbing homogeneity of economic thought that has run the country for a long time... I do loath the entire concept of a PPE course. You can usually tell when people have surface deep knowledge of complex subjects. Tale tell signs are that they know GDP is important but don't really grasp the flaws in how it's calculated and how that can give a false impression of what's going on. Although economics is a degenerate subject which is unable to produce anything of value since they started awarding Nobel prizes for utter crap like the Black–Scholes formula. Which is essentially beautiful maths and functionally useless. Behavioural economics, I like, but they had to give it a special name to distinguish from the kind of bullshit that freely flows out of chicago. " Well it's like the joke about the physicist, chemist and economist stranded on the desert island trying to light a fire... It's the only 'science' (said in the loosest possible sense) where if the evidence doesn't fit the theory, they scrap the evidence rather than the theory... | |||
"I agree with the spirit of what you're saying. The problem these days is that in many areas, proper scientific enquiry is dead because funding is only allocated to subjects deemed politically correct at universities that are 80% left wing, as an average, which basically means 100% left wing in certain subjects. True. Cuts both ways though, doesn't it? A huge number of politicians of all stripes seem to come through PPE at Oxford, or some other similar course, in which neoclassical economics is presented as the one true version of the truth. Whether you're Gordon Brown, Ed Balls, Phillip Hammond or one of the Orange Book Lib Dems, there's a disturbing homogeneity of economic thought that has run the country for a long time... I do loath the entire concept of a PPE course. You can usually tell when people have surface deep knowledge of complex subjects. Tale tell signs are that they know GDP is important but don't really grasp the flaws in how it's calculated and how that can give a false impression of what's going on. Although economics is a degenerate subject which is unable to produce anything of value since they started awarding Nobel prizes for utter crap like the Black–Scholes formula. Which is essentially beautiful maths and functionally useless. Behavioural economics, I like, but they had to give it a special name to distinguish from the kind of bullshit that freely flows out of chicago. Well it's like the joke about the physicist, chemist and economist stranded on the desert island trying to light a fire... It's the only 'science' (said in the loosest possible sense) where if the evidence doesn't fit the theory, they scrap the evidence rather than the theory..." "Assume a can opener" Exactly that. They are so hell bent on producing mathematical models that they simplifying those models to the point that they don't tell you anything practical. | |||
"There have been some really positive experiments "I prefer sexual ones | |||
