DarkCorp
So Old I'm Losing Radiation Signs
valcik said:
Watch the movie 'Idiocracy', Valcik, it is hilarious.
The Neo-Liberals ...
- Thread starter Crni Vuk
- Start date
So Old I'm Losing Radiation Signs
Watch the movie 'Idiocracy', Valcik, it is hilarious.
BigGuyCIA
Yer fond of me Lobster!
My thoughts on UBI can be summed up as what Milton Friedman said on the matter:
"Nobody spends somebody else's money as wisely as he spends his own."
The education system needs to be resolved before we can even consider any sort of UBI.
"Nobody spends somebody else's money as wisely as he spends his own."
The education system needs to be resolved before we can even consider any sort of UBI.
*Edit
Seriously I am feeling like I am talking to walls right now. It's the same shit as with Climate change.
There is a certain data and it points to a certain development. I say that we have to do some changes now, or at least thinking about it, to avoid the worst outcome.
And all I hear is, can't do that, it's not possible as it puts our economies to much in danger.
Well if you guys put it that way ... then what is the alternative here, you know what happens with societies that don't change, right?
The way how our societies worked for the past let us say 70 years was pretty awesome. At least for the majority of the western world. No doubts about that. Hey, I can see the benefits it gave us. But, those times might come to an end, more and more scientists crawl out of the woodwork that say, how the data and numbers are showing that we're kinda heading in a very critical direction.
After all there is no 'law' in economics that says, things have to always go up. Infact, history has shown that peaks often lead to well, a drastic drop because someones wealth is someones else debt. In a very abstract way our current society shares many similarities with the french revolution, and I think everyone knows how well that one ended. The disparity in wealth between the super rich and the masses of people are even worse when you compare it to medieval times. How long is that going to last if that inequality continues grow?
A german study asked people a few qustions about UBI. One question was if people would quit their job if they received UBI, 70% of the people they asked said they would still keep their current job, but they would most probably work less. They also asked the same people, if they believe their neighbour would also keep his job, and almost everyone said 'no'.
Of course that's just a very simple survey and not saying what ever if it is effective or not - but that wasn't even the point of the survey, their intention was to show how the opinions of people changed on the same subject as soon as they had to assume what others might think. And this is the big problem with UBI right now, we're not talking what ever if it is a good or bad concept, we're just saying what we 'think' it is, or isn't. And that's a pretty shitty way to see if something works or not.
I am just saying, telling our selfs that it works or doesn't work based on what we 'believe' is a very shitty argument when there is literaly no hard data to back that claim up. What I believe is that UBI is a very interesting concept, interesting enough that is at least worth to try it out in a limited test environment with the proper conditions to make some clear proposition. But the test would have to be done with at least 10 000 people and for 5 years - possibily more and without any strings attached, like conditions or expectations and it would have to be a REAL UBI, so like 1500$ each month.
That way we could gain some real knowledge to find out if it is actually a usefull concept or not. And if someone says, well it can't be done ... well I think it wouldn't cost society an arm and a leg to test it out, maybe produce 2 or 3 tanks less for a few months and you have the money together.
Otherwise I would have to ask, what alternative do you propose for the challanges that comes with automation, as pretty famous and respected unversities claim that up to 40 if not even 50% of the jobs could be in danger. Because that transition is coming, what ever if we test UBI or not.
This is part of the problem, EVERYONE(!) is simply aruging out of ignorance on that matter, including me as a I believe people wouldn't just become lazy bums doing nothing. I think a lot of people would simply do something that they see as better alternative, or they would work less in their current job, but I also think there will be people that won't change anything in their life, simply because they love their job. A lot of people would still want to have a new car, a large home, traveling around or what ever. So in other words, they would still have to get money to do those things, and they will do it with a job. The big difference will be, that no one will go and clean a fucked up toilet, or flipping burgers for a minimum wage anymore, simply because they don't have to do it and if companies like Mc Donalds or Wall Mart want to keep their work force, they will have to give them some incentive, in other words paying more. But that's all just 'theory'. As I said, there is sadly NO verifable data on what ever if UBI can work or not.
But to totally dismiss it, on the mere 'idea' that it can't work just because you say so, is very unscientific.
Seriously I am feeling like I am talking to walls right now. It's the same shit as with Climate change.
There is a certain data and it points to a certain development. I say that we have to do some changes now, or at least thinking about it, to avoid the worst outcome.
And all I hear is, can't do that, it's not possible as it puts our economies to much in danger.
Well if you guys put it that way ... then what is the alternative here, you know what happens with societies that don't change, right?
The way how our societies worked for the past let us say 70 years was pretty awesome. At least for the majority of the western world. No doubts about that. Hey, I can see the benefits it gave us. But, those times might come to an end, more and more scientists crawl out of the woodwork that say, how the data and numbers are showing that we're kinda heading in a very critical direction.
After all there is no 'law' in economics that says, things have to always go up. Infact, history has shown that peaks often lead to well, a drastic drop because someones wealth is someones else debt. In a very abstract way our current society shares many similarities with the french revolution, and I think everyone knows how well that one ended. The disparity in wealth between the super rich and the masses of people are even worse when you compare it to medieval times. How long is that going to last if that inequality continues grow?
And you have scientific data to back that claim up? Or do we just talk 'ideology' now?
A german study asked people a few qustions about UBI. One question was if people would quit their job if they received UBI, 70% of the people they asked said they would still keep their current job, but they would most probably work less. They also asked the same people, if they believe their neighbour would also keep his job, and almost everyone said 'no'.
Of course that's just a very simple survey and not saying what ever if it is effective or not - but that wasn't even the point of the survey, their intention was to show how the opinions of people changed on the same subject as soon as they had to assume what others might think. And this is the big problem with UBI right now, we're not talking what ever if it is a good or bad concept, we're just saying what we 'think' it is, or isn't. And that's a pretty shitty way to see if something works or not.
I am just saying, telling our selfs that it works or doesn't work based on what we 'believe' is a very shitty argument when there is literaly no hard data to back that claim up. What I believe is that UBI is a very interesting concept, interesting enough that is at least worth to try it out in a limited test environment with the proper conditions to make some clear proposition. But the test would have to be done with at least 10 000 people and for 5 years - possibily more and without any strings attached, like conditions or expectations and it would have to be a REAL UBI, so like 1500$ each month.
That way we could gain some real knowledge to find out if it is actually a usefull concept or not. And if someone says, well it can't be done ... well I think it wouldn't cost society an arm and a leg to test it out, maybe produce 2 or 3 tanks less for a few months and you have the money together.
Otherwise I would have to ask, what alternative do you propose for the challanges that comes with automation, as pretty famous and respected unversities claim that up to 40 if not even 50% of the jobs could be in danger. Because that transition is coming, what ever if we test UBI or not.
The money that you receive would be 'your' money the moment you get it. Why do you think people would make a different choice here what ever if they get it from a 'boss' or from a 'state'? Do you think 90% of the population would become suddenly extreme hedonists that spend all their cash in the first week on hookers and cocain?
This is part of the problem, EVERYONE(!) is simply aruging out of ignorance on that matter, including me as a I believe people wouldn't just become lazy bums doing nothing. I think a lot of people would simply do something that they see as better alternative, or they would work less in their current job, but I also think there will be people that won't change anything in their life, simply because they love their job. A lot of people would still want to have a new car, a large home, traveling around or what ever. So in other words, they would still have to get money to do those things, and they will do it with a job. The big difference will be, that no one will go and clean a fucked up toilet, or flipping burgers for a minimum wage anymore, simply because they don't have to do it and if companies like Mc Donalds or Wall Mart want to keep their work force, they will have to give them some incentive, in other words paying more. But that's all just 'theory'. As I said, there is sadly NO verifable data on what ever if UBI can work or not.
But to totally dismiss it, on the mere 'idea' that it can't work just because you say so, is very unscientific.
Last edited:
BigGuyCIA
Yer fond of me Lobster!
There's a major difference between money earned and money received.
No, I don't. But I doubt that a significant sum of the people that would qualify for UBI would use it in a manner that would benefit themselves and help them get out of their rut. UBI just sounds like a "throw money at the problem" rather than an actual program that can incentivize people to get out of dire straits.
Nah, you're just putting words into my mouth. I have not said it wouldn't work, I simply believe that in order for it to actually work you need to improve the educational system (something that I don't mind paying taxes towards) first and foremost. Namely, several mandatory elective courses (in high-school & college ) about personal finance and fiscal responsibility.
No, I don't. But I doubt that a significant sum of the people that would qualify for UBI would use it in a manner that would benefit themselves and help them get out of their rut. UBI just sounds like a "throw money at the problem" rather than an actual program that can incentivize people to get out of dire straits.
Nah, you're just putting words into my mouth. I have not said it wouldn't work, I simply believe that in order for it to actually work you need to improve the educational system (something that I don't mind paying taxes towards) first and foremost. Namely, several mandatory elective courses (in high-school & college ) about personal finance and fiscal responsibility.
CT Phipps
Carbon Dated and Proud
Capitalism's primary benefit is wealth-generation. Which is something which should be encouraged and not overly worried about. My view on the subject is it doesn't matter if Bill Gates (ignoring he's a massive philanthropist) can build a moon base as long as it generates enough wealth to keep me and everyone else better off than we would be elsewhere.
That doesn't mean that you can't regulate capitalism or add socialist programs from it without crashing the system.
Society should allow capitalism to flourish but also tax it for the benefit of all.
That doesn't mean that you can't regulate capitalism or add socialist programs from it without crashing the system.
Society should allow capitalism to flourish but also tax it for the benefit of all.
valcik
So Old I'm Losing Radiation Signs
Yes, I know this one. UBI future alright!
This is your scientific data? Big deal, majority of polled British voters claimed they won't support Brexit, and look what happened. People are dishonest, they don't speak truth all the time, next news at eleven.
Walpknut
This ghoul has seen it all
Idiocracy is a movie about promoting eugenics and ethnic cleansing that is edgy enough to make idiots think it's smart.
valcik
So Old I'm Losing Radiation Signs
Idiocracy is a very good parody, nothing else. Also not that "stupid" as some idiots may think. Here's your science:
http://www.pnas.org/content/114/5/E727.full
Walpknut
This ghoul has seen it all
Idiocracy is only a good parody of the kind of people that use it to feel smart.
The social capitalism or social market or what ever you want to call it, was probably one of the most important inventions of the last 70 years. But I fear it's not enough to really combat the challanges we're going to face in the next 40 or 50 years. Particularly as there are many neo-liberal politicans and elites that try to dismantle it right now, for what ever reason.
But the more important qeustion is, wealth generation for whom? There is this 'idea' that all we have to do is to just make the rich more ... rich, and it will make everyone better off, because the richer the rich become, the better will the situation be for those that have less, because rich people generate jobs and income. Just like an escelator, where everyone will get to the top, eventually.
But there is no rule in either economy or capitalism that says, that this has to be the case that wealth generates wealth - for everyone. Infact, a lot of the money that is generated by the rich to speak so, seems to only sit around without flowing back into the economy, like as investments for example, investments that would benefit the population like if Bill Gates would use 90% of his wealth to push new green technologies, there are literaly billions of dollars world wide that sit around and do nothing else but generating interest, among other things like ruining the economies of nations like Greece or Spain.
It is a highly complex topic. I mean this is what we see right now, there is a tremendious amount of wealth generated trough globalism which benefits an smaller and smaller group, but how much of this wealth is transfered to the average worker in the US for example? And how does he benefit from it? That's something that people should ask.
The Elephant Chart indicates that this is not the case.
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/arti...balization-elephant-chart-over-and-over-again
The problem with it though is that globalisation can't be undone, you could as well try to undo the nuclear bomb or the invention of engines or any other technological evolution. And globalisation has a lot to do with technological changes in many ways with digitalisation. For example, companies like Apple or Google generate billions of dollars each year and new companies do the same particluarly with the use of the internet, but they employ less and less people, in some cases even just a few thousands, compared to maybe the Ford company some 70 years ago. Those jobs won't come back.
And automatisation might also revolutonise the whole transport sector in a few decades. You can't change thousands of 45 year old truck drivers in to programmers compething with 17 year old east european whiz-kidz.
Absolutely! My bad if I did.
The 3 biggest challanges that I see for the future, are:
1. Climate change.
2. Automatisation (jobs)
3. Education.
Right now, we're doing noting or not even close to enough in either one of those 3 areas.
Well, we will never know it unless we really tried it.
No, no it isn't, I said that clearly. I quote :
Of course that's just a very simple survey and not saying what ever if it is effective or not - but that wasn't even the point of the survey, their intention was to show how the opinions of people changed on the same subject as soon as they had to assume what others might think.
We have no clear scientific data, the survey was just to see what people 'think' about UBI, not what ever if it is effective or not. Infact, there have been some very limited tests like in India, or Sweden I think, but many of them have been flawed, despite of the positive results some tests have shown, they can not be used to make a definitive argument for or against UBI. But this is what is needed.
valcik
So Old I'm Losing Radiation Signs
No, it's a good parody for people who understand jokes and fun. What's wrong with you? Sugar-free diet kicking in?
Walpknut
This ghoul has seen it all
Feeling smart for "understanding" Idiocracy? Now that is a good joke.
CT Phipps
Carbon Dated and Proud
Junk science has been attempting to justify the idea of not educating the poor to the best of their ability for decades. Yes, there are people who are genetically equipped with learning disabilities or not as brilliant as others. However, we've only to look at other nations which have a focus on unlimited education to see how that affects the public as a whole.
I still have yet to hear a 'neo-liberal/capitalist' solution to the question, what should happen if 50% of the jobs disappear.
CT Phipps
Carbon Dated and Proud
Honestly, their answer is let the poor suffer and die given we've seen what happened to the Rust Belt. Which, I point out, died because of that many jobs disappearing. A similar thing occurred in my home town of Ashland, Ky when the titular Ashland Oil company left and a nearby steel plant also shut down. The town scrambled to find a new industry to keep it alive and ended up with hospital care and tourism--neither of which worked great but was better than the surrounding towns which have fallen to drug addiction (so much so, our Furhers Rand Paul and Matt Blevin have doubled down on the War on Prescription Drugs despite it only hurting the people who need them generally) or a mass exodus to other areas of the country.
Last edited:
That's all nice and dandy, but what will you do when it's not just a small town or city, but half of the nation? It doesn't take a degree in rocket science to see that this will lead to a real disaster. People are already rioting today in places like in Detroit, Chicago and so on. Imagine this with half of the population.
I mean ...
I mean ...
CT Phipps
Carbon Dated and Proud
Frankly, I think you overestimate the proletariat of the USA as this kind of thing isn't new to the country. It has happened to country-sized regions larger than many nations in Europe in the Rust Belt and it has happened to country-sized regions larger than many nations in my area.
Which, I remind you, is something I know because Appalachia is a place where corporations have directly controlled the citizenry as well as bilked the populace of every nickle and dime to a level undreamed of by most corporate shills. We are, after all, the only place the United States has bombed due to the Coal Wars where the government murdered striking workers on behalf of the super rich. A past which may become the future again.
It is, in fact, extremely probable that mass poverty will occur across the United States and the country will be full of the homeless and unemployed working subsistance wages with manufacturing no longer existing as a job in the country. However, that will amount to, "Not terribly different from now, albeit worse." The manufacturing industry being shut down by robotics is already something that has been in the process of happening for decades but it was exported outward first. When most of those jobs disappear, they're going to happen in Indonesia, China, and Mexico as they've already left America.
Service industries, medicine, retail, and programming have been the American standard for awhile now.
As for wealth-generation, we're speaking in the large term but also in awareness of the fundamental bullshiterry of the "hands off" economic policy or invisible hand which dominates conservative thinking. It's a feint or sleight of hand. Wealth generation for the poor only works when the uberrich are MADE to pay for their entitlements. Left alone, labor organizes into unions and strikes back for rights as well as pay but the corporations and oligarch cartels naturally do their best to turn both the populace as well as governments against labor practices. The Invisible Hand is something they trust only when it works for them because they're a bunch of lying hypocritical whiny bitches.
If the corporate paymasters of the USA are smart, we will probably see a Basic Living Subsidiary induced and some small tax reform with companies charged slightly more and that will be enough to keep people from dying in the streets. Likewise, those lost manufacturing jobs will still mean incredibly cheap products which will benefit to the wealth of even those who are otherwise living on the Dole but will have flatscreens to go with their circuses and bread.
Last edited:
Mr Fish
Slippy sloppy, The
I wouldn't worry too much. We'll all get permanent positions over at the Soylent Corporation and things'll sort itself out.
Ah, CT Phipps the old 'It can't happen here' argument 
. I think my opinion holds as much merrit as yours, since we're talking about something that has no historical presedence - as far as the united states goes.
There are like more or less 319 million people in the United States, imagine 40% of them without jobs now ... that would be what? 130 million people without jobs? Even at the most critical point in US history, the great depression, it had 'only' 11 million looking for employment. which was about 25%. And the 1930s saw some pretty heavy civil unrests, like the Bonus Army where even the army was used to clear the protesters.
Well, now imagine 1 million people camping in Washington DC. Very pissed off people.
. I think my opinion holds as much merrit as yours, since we're talking about something that has no historical presedence - as far as the united states goes.There are like more or less 319 million people in the United States, imagine 40% of them without jobs now ... that would be what? 130 million people without jobs? Even at the most critical point in US history, the great depression, it had 'only' 11 million looking for employment. which was about 25%. And the 1930s saw some pretty heavy civil unrests, like the Bonus Army where even the army was used to clear the protesters.
Retired Marine Corps Major General Smedley Butler, one of the most popular military figures of the time, visited their camp to back the effort and encourage them.[1] On July 28, U.S. Attorney General William D. Mitchell ordered the veterans removed from all government property. Washington police met with resistance, shots were fired and two veterans were wounded and later died. President Herbert Hoover then ordered the Army to clear the veterans' campsite. Army Chief of Staff General Douglas MacArthur commanded the infantry and cavalry supported by six tanks. The Bonus Army marchers with their wives and children were driven out, and their shelters and belongings burned.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bonus_Army
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bonus_Army
Well, now imagine 1 million people camping in Washington DC. Very pissed off people.
CT Phipps
Carbon Dated and Proud
I find it kind of baffling you think what I'm describing isn't nightmarish. I literally am describing a situation WORSE than yours by magnitudes because it's a populace destroyed by apathy and not even CARING enough to revolt.