Universal Basic Income

[Total Crica]

Automated systems can create value without human labor.

Until humans work to produce them, they can not.

[xenogear3]

Sounds great.
Where do I sign up?

[Total Crica]

you also implicitly argued that a UBI would lead to no one working,

No, I did not. I said that if no one works, no one can have things that only come from someone working.

- - - Updated - - -

Labor doesn't produce value through work.

This statement makes zero sense. Labor is work. Work is labor. Laboring/working is the only way to produce the value we need to remain alive - edible food, clothes, drinkable water, shelter, safety, education etc - and it's the only way to produce the value that entertains us as well. Yes, machines can do the work/labor, but only after humans work/labor to produce machines to begin with.

[Endus]

Have you ever read Frederic Bastiat's the law? I find you to be the Plunderer that he speaks of. I just want you to know that I find thieves who use government jackboot thuggery for thieving from the people who contribute which I and millions of other people who work, find immoral.

I find that reprehensible, and in most causing is a form of robbery. I know what you're going to say about legal plunder, so save it. I've seen you espouse it many of times on your communist beliefs on this forum. I still consider you a thief, and nothing more than a thief.

My bet is if a food crisis like Venezuela happened, you'd be one of the first ones dead.

I just re-read it, since it's been a while. Bastiat's not really the pinnacle source you want to think he is. Most of what he argued has been heavily criticised or outright refuted by economists, and a lot of his arguments end up being directly circular. For instance, consider this passage, from the subheading "How to identify legal plunder";

But how is this legal plunder to be identified? Quite simply. See if the law takes from some persons what belongs to them, and gives it to other persons to whom it does not belong.

This is circular nonsense. He's referring to taxes, obviously. And the taxes some persons owe do not "belong to them". They belong to the State. And those to whom the state gives those funds to, either directly or indirectly, those proceeds then belong to those persons.

He tries to use his own made-up definition of what "belongs" to anyone, and this is one of his first arguments to defend that definition. And it fails, because it relies upon that definition, inherently. It's circular reasoning, and thus means nothing.

Just as an example; that's by no means the only issue. So in the end, you're just engaging in ad hominems, and misrepresenting my position. You said I have "communist beliefs". That's false. I'm not a communist, and I've said so many a time. But in your rush to insult me, you don't even care to take the time to make sure your jabs are accurate.

Until humans work to produce them, they can not.

This is literally contradicted by the word "automation".

No, I did not. I said that if no one works, no one can have things that only come from someone working.

Which is a straw man, since no one is suggesting or proposing anything that would leave no one working.

It's also wrong, since a sufficiently automated system could readily produce stuff without human involvement at all. We may not be at that technological niveau yet, but it's not that far off.

[PACOX]

UBI is already here in some form in welfare and unemployment. It will be expanded in the future as AI becomes better, some industries become obsolete, an employers do not retrain their works (or theres no incentive for older workers to retrain).


Amazon is killing brick and mortar retail, regardless of what said store specializes in. (I needed lube and a screwdriver for a PC fan. Took me about 5 min to find it on Amazon. Took me about 45 min of BS at Home Depot includinh drive and was more expessive minus not having the stuff that day).

Some.government offices are being forced to.downsize due to computers and the private sector doing their job better (USPS, DMVs)

Automated roads will be more realistic (they actually could've been a thing), which will create new jobs related to troubleshooting and maintenance of infrastructure and car components but kill a lot more.

Even medicine is being transformed with the rise of small urgent care centers and telecommunicating with doctors.

Point is as we get better at providing good and servives via IT, we're going to need less manpower to keep the world going. There simply wont be enough jobs, even entertainment (and it has see Youtube, Soundcloud, and Twitch) will be less lucrative because supply will overtake demand. Theres going have to be some way feed people when there is less work and more supply.

[Endus]

This statement makes zero sense. Labor is work. Work is labor. Laboring/working is the only way to produce the value we need to remain alive - edible food, clothes, drinkable water, shelter, safety, education etc - and it's the only way to produce the value that entertains us as well. Yes, machines can do the work/labor, but only after humans work/labor to produce machines to begin with.

That stopped being true the moment we developed machines to do labor for us. You're conflating the labor to produce the machines with the ongoing labor the machines provide, which is wrong.

Want an example of why it's wrong? Women labor to produce children, and parents collectively labor to raise those children. By your own argument, if any descendent of those parents ever works, they only do so because their ancestors labored to produce their family, and thus those parents share their value retroactively. If you think that's ridiculous and nonsensical, you'll understand why I see your argument the same way, since it's the same thing.

[Total Crica]

This is literally contradicted by the word "automation".

Only once humans produce the automation to begin with. Automation didn't just pop into existence on it's own, it required human labor to exist to begin with.

- - - Updated - - -

You're conflating the labor to produce the machines with the ongoing labor the machines provide

No, I am not. I realize that machines can labor/work in place of humans, but only because human's labor/worked to produce them to begin with.

Right now, today, there are machines that labor in our stead, but there are also many people who labor to produce, and if they don't continue to labor to produce, no one can have what they are producing because there are right now, today, no machines to labor in their stead.

[Endus]

Only once humans produce the automation to begin with. Automation didn't just pop into existence on it's own, it required human labor to exist to begin with.

Which is irrelevant. Individual humans don't pop into existence on their own, either; they require human labor to produce them, too. Their labor is still their own.

You seem to be trying to insert concepts of property into this, which isn't sticking to the subject.

[Total Crica]

Which is irrelevant. Individual humans don't pop into existence on their own, either; they require human labor to produce them, too. Their labor is still their own.

You seem to be trying to insert concepts of property into this, which isn't sticking to the subject.

No, I don't think property ownership should even be a thing. Management of property, of course, but never property ownership. So, no, I am not talking about owning property.

[Endus]

No, I don't think property ownership should even be a thing. Management of property, of course, but never property ownership. So, no, I am not talking about owning property.

Then you really don't have any argument for claiming that the machine's labor belongs to the person that created the machine.

[Spiral]

Yay let's do the Soviet Union again.

[Total Crica]

Then you really don't have any argument for claiming that the machine's labor belongs to the person that created the machine.

I never tried to argue that. In today's reality, the machine itself belongs to the one who labored to produce it because property ownership IS a thing. And since it belongs to them, only they have any authority to decide if/when/how/why the machine labors and who it labors for. There is no way around this for as long a human who labored to produce a machine is alive.

[Deathcries]

I just re-read it, since it's been a while. Bastiat's not really the pinnacle source you want to think he is. Most of what he argued has been heavily criticised or outright refuted by economists, and a lot of his arguments end up being directly circular. For instance, consider this passage, from the subheading "How to identify legal plunder";

But how is this legal plunder to be identified? Quite simply. See if the law takes from some persons what belongs to them, and gives it to other persons to whom it does not belong.

This is circular nonsense. He's referring to taxes, obviously. And the taxes some persons owe do not "belong to them". They belong to the State. And those to whom the state gives those funds to, either directly or indirectly, those proceeds then belong to those persons.

He tries to use his own made-up definition of what "belongs" to anyone, and this is one of his first arguments to defend that definition. And it fails, because it relies upon that definition, inherently. It's circular reasoning, and thus means nothing.

Just as an example; that's by no means the only issue. So in the end, you're just engaging in ad hominems, and misrepresenting my position. You said I have "communist beliefs". That's false. I'm not a communist, and I've said so many a time. But in your rush to insult me, you don't even care to take the time to make sure your jabs are accurate.



This is literally contradicted by the word "automation".



Which is a straw man, since no one is suggesting or proposing anything that would leave no one working.

It's also wrong, since a sufficiently automated system could readily produce stuff without human involvement at all. We may not be at that technological niveau yet, but it's not that far off.

I like this "Bastiat's not really the pinnacle source you want to think he is. Most of what he argued has been heavily criticised or outright refuted by economists, and a lot of his arguments end up being directly circular. For instance, consider this passage, from the subheading "How to identify legal plunder""

Basically you're saying because the government that was voted in make laws and those taxes I'm paying that it's no longer my money. Because a "person is", therefore I owe them something. Like they're a benefit to me so I, and others who work have to pay for their basic income, and happiness. That I am a host that must allow the leech to drain. Just because, in your opinion. "They are"

Let me put that in a broader spectrum. You have no benefit to me. You being alive has no benefit to me. You're openly coming out saying my government has the right to my income, and then to dispense it among the population that has no benefit to me which is your opinion.


I remember when you compared a fetus to the same thing as skin, or as you put it "feces". That's exactly how I look at people like yourself. That's how important you are to me. You're on that same level as the #2 I took earlier today. Along with anyone who thinks like you, who think you have a right to the fruits of my labor. If a million parasites died tomorrow, there wouldn't be a tear shed. I believe the economy would get a lot better without said parasites.

Bastiat's pamphlet is only disregarded by leeches, and parasites. I hope that helps you understand where I stand on the subject and how I feel about people like yourself.

[Endus]

I never tried to argue that. In today's reality, the machine itself belongs to the one who labored to produce it because property ownership IS a thing.

So you've gone from protesting that you weren't conflating the source of labor with property ownership, to specifically explaining that you are conflating those two things, in just two post.

It's going to be pretty challenging to have any productive discussion if you keep moving goalposts on me like this.

And since it belongs to them, only they have any authority to decide if/when/how/why the machine labors and who it labors for. There is no way around this for as long a human who labored to produce a machine is alive.

There's also the point that you're completely wrong about the property ownership, since those who labor to produce these machines almost never own the machines that result. They don't even sell them. They labor to produce them for their employer, and the shareholders of the company, who get the benefit of the sale of that machine, typically do not do any labor in that production, since most of these aren't union-owned shops. So not only are you doing exactly what you protested you weren't, a moment ago, it's not even remotely accurate.

- - - Updated - - -

Bastiat's pamphlet is only disregarded by leeches, and parasites. I hope that helps you understand where I stand on the subject and how I feel about people like yourself.

Oh, I understand your perspective completely. You've failed to make any actual argument, though. Just pointless and factually incorrect slander. So really, this isn't about you trying to make a point about economics, it's just a wordier way for you to point at me and call me names.

Which is just kind of boring, dude.

[Deathcries]

So you've gone from protesting that you weren't conflating the source of labor with property ownership, to specifically explaining that you are conflating those two things, in just two post.

It's going to be pretty challenging to have any productive discussion if you keep moving goalposts on me like this.



There's also the point that you're completely wrong about the property ownership, since those who labor to produce these machines almost never own the machines that result. They don't even sell them. They labor to produce them for their employer, and the shareholders of the company, who get the benefit of the sale of that machine, typically do not do any labor in that production, since most of these aren't union-owned shops. So not only are you doing exactly what you protested you weren't, a moment ago, it's not even remotely accurate.

- - - Updated - - -



Oh, I understand your perspective completely. You've failed to make any actual argument, though. Just pointless and factually incorrect slander. So really, this isn't about you trying to make a point about economics, it's just a wordier way for you to point at me and call me names.

Which is just kind of boring, dude.

You're trying justify stealing my money while telling me you're not stealing. It's the same thing as pissing on my leg and telling me it's raining, or you're saying you're not pissing on my leg. That's how this conversation is going. You see theft as okay, as long as it comes from .gov. It makes you feel justified in stealing. It's like telling a parasite that they don't have a right to the body. They feel they're justified in their actions. They're owed. They don't know any better. It's why we can't have a conversation.

[PosPosPos]

You're trying justify stealing my money while telling me you're not stealing. It's the same thing as pissing on my leg and telling me it's not raining, or you're saying you're not pissing on my leg. That's how this conversation is going. You see theft as okay, as long as it comes from .gov. It makes you feel justified in stealing. It's like telling a parasite that they don't have a right to the body. They don't know any better. It's why we can't have a conversation.

Exactly, which is why the rich who don't repay the government and society for providing them with infrastructure to succeed are parasites and thieves.

[Deathcries]

Exactly, which is why the rich who don't repay the government and society for providing them with infrastructure to succeed are parasites and thieves.

I agree. We do it because we allow it, and it should be stopped. Frederic Bastiat never said only the poor who are/were parasites and thieves. He's referring to people think they have a right to the fruits of your labor. Something that Endus can't comprehend.

If a business fails the government shouldn't get involved. Another business will take it's spot. It's how capitalism works.

[Endus]

You're trying justify stealing my money while telling me you're not stealing. It's the same thing as pissing on my leg and telling me it's raining, or you're saying you're not pissing on my leg. That's how this conversation is going. You see theft as okay, as long as it comes from .gov. It makes you feel justified in stealing. It's like telling a parasite that they don't have a right to the body. They feel they're justified in their actions. They're owed. They don't know any better. It's why we can't have a conversation.

We can't have a conversation because you;

A> make stuff up, like the idea that taxes are theft (they aren't, by any definition of the word), and
B> insult me rather than making any effort whatsoever to make a reasoned argument to defend your position.

I'll have that conversation, but you need to actually make an effort and stop being insulting, if you want to have it. You're not making any effort to do so. The fault for that is yours, not mine.

[PosPosPos]

I agree. We do it because we allow it, and it should be stopped. Frederic Bastiat never said only the poor who are/were parasites and thieves. He's referring to people think they have a right to the fruits of your labor. Something that Endus can't comprehend.

If a business fails the government shouldn't get involved. Another business will take it's spot. It's how capitalism works.

And yet you and your kind rush in droves to bail out republican affiliated banks and businesses when they are about to fail due to their own mismanagement and greed.

Something smells, and boy, that conservative agenda stinks.

[Endus]

I agree. We do it because we allow it, and it should be stopped. Frederic Bastiat never said only the poor who are/were parasites and thieves. He's referring to people think they have a right to the fruits of your labor. Something that Endus can't comprehend.

I comprehend it just fine.

I just think it's a point of view that Bastiat fundamentally rooted in things like circular reasoning, and which therefore doesn't hold up to scrutiny. The dude was wrong about a lot of stuff. Some of his points do hold merit, and I'm not condemning him wholesale, but he's not some magical perfectly-correct writer.

And it's not like I'm somehow unique in noticing this stuff;
http://www.slate.com/blogs/moneybox/...c_bastiat.html
http://www.economictheories.org/2008...criticism.html

Would you like me to quote some Keynes at you as a counter? Would you accept Keynes' word as truth without examining his arguments?