How do you feel about Andrew Yang's UBI of 1,000 a month for every US Adult

[Draco-Onis]

And? If you're implying that we need welfare to maximize the economy then I agree to some minor extent. Certainly nobody should ever have to worry about the bottom rung of Mazlowe's hierarchy. Partially for the second rung. If somebody can't go above that then it's a personal issue that has nothing to do with government policy.

UBI could be an ideal replacement for eligibility-based welfare, but given the national budgets that exist now I wouldn't expect it in the next 20 years.



That's up to each person and how much effort they put into it. Personally I would like to gain all skills and learn everything that there is to know about everything. I'm trying to go out my comfort zone and gain automobile mechanic skills right now, I suck at it, but only because I haven't put in a sufficient amount effort.



Money doesn't matter that much, wealth does. Wealth is effectively infinite from the perspective of 2019. Let's say there's $250 trillion wealth right now, the claim that it's going to cap out at $500 trillion or a quadrillion would be an incredibly bad bet to make. The wealth that exists right now is barely anything compared to how much could exist.



Are you saying we need more people that have more skills? If so I agree.

If you are merely talking about a coordination problem then society should come up with some type of matching system that gets the right people into the right locations.

It seems to be a recurring thing in our conversation you seem to believe in the magic of pulling yourself by the bootstraps and everything will work themselves because that's totes how real life works. I mean it's cute but I am sure exceptions like the rich, corporations and farmers for votes from that philosophy is fine with you because reasons...

[Beefhammer]

You don't have the right to other people's money.

1, we all do better when the bottom rises.
2, the cover charge to live in this country and all the benefits it provides is taxes.
3, it is never wrong to as those that have more than enough to help out those that do not so we can achieve #1.
4, those at the very top, who would be paying the most, have gotten there off the backs of those they don't pay living wages to, rely on corporate welfare, and gsme the system so they do not even have to pay a representative proportion of taxes compared to what they utilize.

All in all, I am not asking for billionaires to made extinct. I'm just asking for them and corporations to pay what they should. In addition they should provide living wages or cease to own or run businesses. Had wages kept up with inflation and productivity, we would not even have to be discussing this.

- - - Updated - - -

It seems to be a recurring thing in our conversation you seem to believe in the magic of pulling yourself by the bootstraps and everything will work themselves because that's totes how real life works. I mean it's cute but I am sure exceptions like the rich, corporations and farmers for votes from that philosophy is fine with you because reasons...

PYUBTBS only works if you have the means to do so. Which typically means being white and coming from a good socioeconomic status. Rare is a minority and/or poorer person doing it.

I also love these guys who say this but want the government to save the coal industry and continue giving subsidies to big oil. Mybey the coal industry should pull themselves up by the bootstraps.

[Shadowferal]

Living wages empowers the middle class and the working poor. This once meant strong unions.
And that means politicians have to listen to them far more than the wealthy.
This is why the last great Republican president had this as his platform:



- - - Updated - - -

I also love these guys who say this but want the government to save the coal industry and continue giving subsidies to big oil. Mybey the coal industry should pull themselves up by the bootstraps.

Speaking of which; A report from a national watchdog group says a cut to the tax that coal companies pay to fund a trust for sick miners will cost taxpayers billions of dollars

[Beefhammer]

Living wages empowers the middle class and the working poor. This once meant strong unions.
And that means politicians have to listen to them far more than the wealthy.
This is why the last great Republican president had this as his platform:



- - - Updated - - -

Speaking of which; A report from a national watchdog group says a cut to the tax that coal companies pay to fund a trust for sick miners will cost taxpayers billions of dollars

Yup but it's the relative handful of people abusing welfare programs that are the problem.

[DisposableHero]

You don't have the right to other people's money.

Funny, because all of America's most successful business owners have been taking other people's money in massive quantities for decades while bootlickers like you cheer them on. Repatriating that money to the exploited via UBI seems like the least we can do.

[Beefhammer]

Funny, because all of America's most successful business owners have been taking other people's money in massive quantities for decades while bootlickers like you cheer them on. Repatriating that money to the exploited via UBI seems like the least we can do.

You see the bootlickers are all in favor of wealth redistribution as long as it is from those that don't have much to thise that don't need anymore. All you'll get is that they worked hard to make their businesses successful. They conveniently ignore the corporate welfare and tax avoidance which directly impacts the working class because those revenues need to be made up in gas taxes, sin taxes and others. They offer to pay less of their employer health insurance which directly impacts the working class. They even go so far as to employ thousands of part time workers instead of full time so they don't have to cover workers health insurance which takes a toll at hospitals, which comes back to the working class in higher premiums, higher facility costs, and increased bankruptcies.

But again, if these people paid a living wage that kept pace with wages and productivity, none of this would be an issue.

[Deletedaccount1]

Funny, because all of America's most successful business owners have been taking other people's money in massive quantities for decades while bootlickers like you cheer them on. Repatriating that money to the exploited via UBI seems like the least we can do.

No they haven't. Take an economics class.

[Endus]

PYUBTBS only works if you have the means to do so. Which typically means being white and coming from a good socioeconomic status. Rare is a minority and/or poorer person doing it.

"Pull yourself up by the bootstraps" was originally a phrase that described something that was literally impossible; you're grabbing the loop on the back of your shoes and lifting yourself into the air.

That it's become a standard expectation of what people should be able to achieve is arguably one of the most egregious and deliberate lies perpetrated upon American society by conservatives, over the last half-century.

It's the equivalent of them asking why you don't have a bunch of flying pigs like they do.

No they haven't. Take an economics class.

Where do you think the money those rich people have came from?

They're taking it from everyone else. Taking some of it back to support the destitute is perfectly reasonable.

If "they're taking it from everyone else" is a ridiculous way to phrase economic transactions to you, then feel free to not use similar verbiage when it comes to taxation to redress the harms caused by an economic pattern that's failing to achieve its core capitalist goal; supporting the welfare of the consumers in society.

[Deletedaccount1]

Where do you think the money those rich people have came from?

They're taking it from everyone else. Taking some of it back to support the destitute is perfectly reasonable.

If "they're taking it from everyone else" is a ridiculous way to phrase economic transactions to you, then feel free to not use similar verbiage when it comes to taxation to redress the harms caused by an economic pattern that's failing to achieve its core capitalist goal; supporting the welfare of the consumers in society.

You are confusing "taking" with "receiving". They received their money from consensual financial transactions, they did not forcibly take it which is what the government does when it redistributes wealth because if you don't pay them they arrest you.

[Endus]

You are confusing "taking" with "receiving". They received their money from consensual financial transactions, they did not forcibly take it which is what the government does when it redistributes wealth because if you don't pay them they arrest you.

I'm not "confusing" anything.

You're creating a thoroughly and egregiously dishonest framing of the basic issues. Taxation is not "forced", save in the way that all law is "forced". The same laws that protect and define those "consensual" transactions you try and frame differently.

"Taxation is theft" is a propaganda lie. It isn't true, in any respect whatsoever. You're trying to argue that some transactions are "right", and some are "wrong", based solely on your subjective preferences, not any consistent rationale. It's exactly the same failure in logic that occurs when state communists talk about capitalist predation on the working classes and that all transactions should be managed by the government. You've just reversed the direction.

The reality is that no distribution of wealth is "natural" to begin with. There is no "redistribution", as distinct from normal distribution. It's all just "distribution". And that a core function of government is to manage that economy, to ensure said distribution is functional and provides for the welfare and support of the citizenry. Arguing for unchecked anarcho-capitalism is an argument against pretty much all economic theory developed since the Great Depression, and violates myriad basic concepts of equity.

[D3thray]

I think there are 2 ways it can go:

1. Cause massive inflation spike, which would make that 1k worthless and might ruin economy.

2. If it doesn't cause inflation spike, I don't see how it would lower unemployment. If anything, it will give incentive to be officially unemployed to receive free money, while also getting paid in cash without taxes. So it would result in more spending and less taxes.

Either way bad idea.

So what are your feelings on a $15 minimum wage?

- - - Updated - - -

I'm not "confusing" anything.

You're creating a thoroughly and egregiously dishonest framing of the basic issues. Taxation is not "forced", save in the way that all law is "forced". The same laws that protect and define those "consensual" transactions you try and frame differently.

"Taxation is theft" is a propaganda lie. It isn't true, in any respect whatsoever. You're trying to argue that some transactions are "right", and some are "wrong", based solely on your subjective preferences, not any consistent rationale. It's exactly the same failure in logic that occurs when state communists talk about capitalist predation on the working classes and that all transactions should be managed by the government. You've just reversed the direction.

The reality is that no distribution of wealth is "natural" to begin with. There is no "redistribution", as distinct from normal distribution. It's all just "distribution". And that a core function of government is to manage that economy, to ensure said distribution is functional and provides for the welfare and support of the citizenry. Arguing for unchecked anarcho-capitalism is an argument against pretty much all economic theory developed since the Great Depression, and violates myriad basic concepts of equity.

Is that support for managed economies or an acknowledgment of the de facto state of a regulated capitalist economy? Just wondering because it changes the context of your response depending on the intent.

[Shadowferal]

No they haven't. Take an economics class.

My fucking money paid for their fat tax break.
You're a sorry apologist for the wealthy.

[Endus]

Is that support for managed economies or an acknowledgment of the de facto state of a regulated capitalist economy? Just wondering because it changes the context of your response depending on the intent.

The latter. I was using "manage" in the sense of "regulate and control", not the more-specific concept of a "managed economy", where governments set prices. I can see how what I said might have suggested the latter, though, due to choice of words.

It goes somewhat deeper than simple legal regulation, however. Interest rates are managed by governments as well. We've seen what unregulated and uncontrolled capitalism results in; it collapsed the global economy through repeated boom-bust cycles, capping off with the Great Depression.

More specifically to capitalist theory, however, I default to the origination; Adam Smith's Wealth of Nations. At least for idealization; Smith was as poor a judge of human character as Marx, in the end. Specifically, my issue with modern capitalist theory can be summed up with a few quotes from that text;

It is the great multiplication of the productions of all the different arts, in consequence of the division of labour, which occasions, in a well-governed society, that universal opulence which extends itself to the lowest ranks of the people.

Specifically, here, he details that the end goal of a capitalist system (or any economic system) should be the enriching of all members of that society, even the poorest.

Consumption is the sole end and purpose of all production; and the interest of the producer ought to be attended to, only so far as it may be necessary for promoting that of the consumer.

The maxim is so perfectly self-evident, that it would be absurd to attempt to prove it. But in the mercantile system, the interest of the consumer is almost constantly sacrificed to that of the producer; and it seems to consider production, and not consumption, as the ultimate end and object of all industry and commerce.

Here he lays out that not only should the interests of the consumers be prioritized, the only reason to consider the needs of producers is to benefit the consumers themselves. And that this should be so obvious he shouldn't even have to say it. And you'll note that his description of the failures of the mercantile system pretty accurately describe modern capitalism, which has veered so far from Smith's envisioning that it's essentially returning to a mercantile system, rather than a capitalist one. Particularly by individuals such as Trump, whose economic nationalism is practically Mercantilism 101; https://www.econlib.org/library/Enc/Mercantilism.html

I honestly wouldn't have much issue with a properly capitalist system. Where Smith's views fall apart is that the producers make the money, and money translates to power, and power begets more money, and once that cycles through enough times, we're back to mercantilism. This is why I'm a socialist; I can't support mercantilism's predatory approach that only benefits the elite, and capitalism utterly failed to protect against that. So, socialism.

[Endus]

There should always be a minimum wage. What does it have to do with my post though?

Likely trying to draw the unwarranted connection between lower-income wealth increases and inflation increases, when there isn't any real observable correlation between minimum wage hikes and inflation spikes.

[D3thray]

The latter. I was using "manage" in the sense of "regulate and control", not the more-specific concept of a "managed economy", where governments set prices. I can see how what I said might have suggested the latter, though, due to choice of words.

It goes somewhat deeper than simple legal regulation, however. Interest rates are managed by governments as well. We've seen what unregulated and uncontrolled capitalism results in; it collapsed the global economy through repeated boom-bust cycles, capping off with the Great Depression.

More specifically to capitalist theory, however, I default to the origination; Adam Smith's Wealth of Nations. At least for idealization; Smith was as poor a judge of human character as Marx, in the end. Specifically, my issue with modern capitalist theory can be summed up with a few quotes from that text;

It is the great multiplication of the productions of all the different arts, in consequence of the division of labour, which occasions, in a well-governed society, that universal opulence which extends itself to the lowest ranks of the people.

Specifically, here, he details that the end goal of a capitalist system (or any economic system) should be the enriching of all members of that society, even the poorest.

Consumption is the sole end and purpose of all production; and the interest of the producer ought to be attended to, only so far as it may be necessary for promoting that of the consumer.

The maxim is so perfectly self-evident, that it would be absurd to attempt to prove it. But in the mercantile system, the interest of the consumer is almost constantly sacrificed to that of the producer; and it seems to consider production, and not consumption, as the ultimate end and object of all industry and commerce.

Here he lays out that not only should the interests of the consumers be prioritized, the only reason to consider the needs of producers is to benefit the consumers themselves. And that this should be so obvious he shouldn't even have to say it. And you'll note that his description of the failures of the mercantile system pretty accurately describe modern capitalism, which has veered so far from Smith's envisioning that it's essentially returning to a mercantile system, rather than a capitalist one. Particularly by individuals such as Trump, whose economic nationalism is practically Mercantilism 101; https://www.econlib.org/library/Enc/Mercantilism.html

I honestly wouldn't have much issue with a properly capitalist system. Where Smith's views fall apart is that the producers make the money, and money translates to power, and power begets more money, and once that cycles through enough times, we're back to mercantilism. This is why I'm a socialist; I can't support mercantilism's predatory approach that only benefits the elite, and capitalism utterly failed to protect against that. So, socialism.

Interesting, I’ve wondered a lot lately about the framing of modern capitalism’s shortcomings vis a vis wealthy inequality. I have trouble reconciling the preoccupation with assets such as property or stocks being used as a direct proxy for liquid currency in evaluating proposals for things such as a wealth tax. It seems to me that these ‘stores’ of wealth are just that and do not directly relate to the money supply. That is to say that the argument for a wealth tax seems to posit that there are somehow just stacks of money being hoarded by wealth individuals that should be re-circulated thru the system. The problem as I see it is that this hoard of money doesn’t actually exist as such and in any case would largely result in money changing hands amongst the investor class rather than siphoning it away. The current situation with the president of Samsung illustrates this problem quite clearly I think.

- - - Updated - - -

There should always be a minimum wage. What does it have to do with my post though?

Just that the stated points of your opposition to UBI would also apply to minimum wage increases.

- - - Updated - - -

Likely trying to draw the unwarranted connection between lower-income wealth increases and inflation increases, when there isn't any real observable correlation between minimum wage hikes and inflation spikes.

Just as stated above really. For the record I’d support some implementation of UBI.

[Daelak]

Interesting, I’ve wondered a lot lately about the framing of modern capitalism’s shortcomings vis a vis wealthy inequality. I have trouble reconciling the preoccupation with assets such as property or stocks being used as a direct proxy for liquid currency in evaluating proposals for things such as a wealth tax. It seems to me that these ‘stores’ of wealth are just that and do not directly relate to the money supply. That is to say that the argument for a wealth tax seems to posit that there are somehow just stacks of money being hoarded by wealth individuals that should be re-circulated thru the system. The problem as I see it is that this hoard of money doesn’t actually exist as such and in any case would largely result in money changing hands amongst the investor class rather than siphoning it away. The current situation with the president of Samsung illustrates this problem quite clearly I think.

Stock/real estate ownership is one aspect of wealth inequality that distorts those markets, with simple examples would be how popular stock indices high/lows haveno correlation to wages or a bell-weather of the national economy since the vast majority of equities are held by an extreme minority of people.

Real estate prices in large metro areas have distorted rents and values due to foreign nationals offshoring their wealth to get away from unstable governments in other parts of the world.

In respect to liquid cash holdings, it is estimated over $15 trillion have been off-shored to be out of reach of their country's government, leaving 99% of all people to subsidize their tax evasion strategies, as well as dealing with their lobbied/corrupt government representatives that tailor the tax code to reduce their wealth that is harder to off-shore or evade from taxation. The $15 trillion is most definitely distorting both the global economic marketplace and the budget shortfalls of all governments, and this is just a conservative estimation.

[D3thray]

Stock/real estate ownership is one aspect of wealth inequality that distorts those markets, with simple examples would be how popular stock indices high/lows haveno correlation to wages or a bell-weather of the national economy since the vast majority of equities are held by an extreme minority of people.

Real estate prices in large metro areas have distorted rents and values due to foreign nationals offshoring their wealth to get away from unstable governments in other parts of the world.

In respect to liquid cash holdings, it is estimated over $15 trillion have been off-shored to be out of reach of their country's government, leaving 99% of all people to subsidize their tax evasion strategies, as well as dealing with their lobbied/corrupt government representatives that tailor the tax code to reduce their wealth that is harder to off-shore or evade from taxation. The $15 trillion is most definitely distorting both the global economic marketplace and the budget shortfalls of all governments, and this is just a conservative estimation.

Right but then that money which is off-shore and subject to stiff penalties (taxes) to return is not in the money supply from a practical standpoint. The circulation of the money supply is ultimately what should be of concern. On paper that money exists, in practice its not doing anything except maybe circulating in numerous foreign economies. In essence its a reduction of the money supply from their countries of origin and as such counteracts inflation in those countries. A central bank can (and does) easily manage this.

[Blur4stuff]

There aren't enough working teenagers to cover all low wage/crappy jobs. Millions of them must be filled by adults.

All arguments like, "just get a better job" are completely pointless. Adults will be filling them no matter what.

Either you want a large, permanent block of working poor or you want people to actually have good lives in exchange for their labor.

[Daelak]

Right but then that money which is off-shore and subject to stiff penalties (taxes) to return is not in the money supply from a practical standpoint. The circulation of the money supply is ultimately what should be of concern. On paper that money exists, in practice its not doing anything except maybe circulating in numerous foreign economies. In essence its a reduction of the money supply from their countries of origin and as such counteracts inflation in those countries. A central bank can (and does) easily manage this.

You misunderstand me; this $15 trillion is being hoarded in international banks that don't have financial extradition treaties with developed countries, nor do they collect personal data on the people that deposit the cash. This isn't USD in circulation around the world, this is cash and other liquid assets that are being sheltered from taxation and observation by US and other law enforcement agencies.

[BeepBoo]

Either you want a large, permanent block of working poor or you want people to actually have good lives in exchange for their labor.

False dichotomy. Plenty of other choices out there besides those two extremes.

Even a trash collector would make bank, despite the low skill nature of the job, if there were only a few people WILLING to do it while everyone else wanted it to be done. The fact is, there is no floor, and poor people are desperate, so they cut themselves off at the legs. I'm fine with this. Let them do it until the exact number of unskilled labor providers perfectly matches (or is slightly less than) the exact number of unskilled labor providers we need.

The only reason they don't make better lives is because there is an oversupply, because people can't and won't stop fucking, and the dumber/poorer you are, the more likely you are to have a baby when you fuck.