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

[Endus]

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.

The distinction between value and wealth is functionally meaningless. If they could liquidate the item, then it counts as wealth. It isn't about "stacks of cash" at all; it's about not letting someone take stacks of cash, convert it into property to avoid being taxed on it, and then liquidate as needed when you need cash again.

If you separate the two, you just create a super-exploitable loophole.

We're also engaging in "boo-hoo, the billionaire might only be a hundred-millionaire" type nonsense, here, which really doesn't bear consideration. They're not suffering. Progressive tax brackets on these things prevent that ever becoming the case. They'd just have you believe that a rich person "needs" their 14th Maserati the same way a few thousand working-class people need regular, healthy, quality meals, and thus it's "unfair" to ask the rich person to maybe only get by with a couple Maseratis while those people get to eat proper meals regularly.

- - - Updated - - -

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.

All of this is complete horseshit. Literally, bullshit propaganda designed to justify human rights abuses.

Labour demand is a factor of population. That population is what creates demand for products and services, which creates demand for labour to provide such. If you kill the unemployable, you reduce the population by 5% or more. Demand for products and such falls, cutbacks occur, people get fired, there's less jobs available, and now you're back to a similar level of unemployment. It doesn't fix anything. You're going to rely on the very temporary bump in apparent employment numbers before the market readjusts to try and claim otherwise, which is a deliberate lie, one with malicious intent behind it.

If what you're saying made sense, then we'd have unemployment rates up around 65%. Because the labor force in 1950 was around 60 million people, and it's around 160 million today. The number of jobs would have remained steady, if you were right about any of this. Clearly, it didn't, because population creates demand. Directly.

The problem isn't population, or population growth in "wrong" demographics. That's bullshit and it's based on no data and claims that have no basis in fact whatsoever.

[BeepBoo]

All of this is complete horseshit. Literally, bullshit propaganda designed to justify human rights abuses.

Nope.

Labour demand is a factor of population. That population is what creates demand for products and services, which creates demand for labour to provide such.

Did I ever say it wasn't?

If you kill the unemployable, you reduce the population by 5% or more. Demand for products and such falls, cutbacks occur, people get fired, there's less jobs available, and now you're back to a similar level of unemployment. It doesn't fix anything.

Oh so there doesn't exist some perfect homeostatic level of people out there, that can grow and shrink (slowly) to allow for increases and decreases in demands etc?
It would all eventually balance out to perfection if you would let it.

If what you're saying made sense, then we'd have unemployment rates up around 65%. Because the labor force in 1950 was around 60 million people, and it's around 160 million today. The number of jobs would have remained steady, if you were right about any of this. Clearly, it didn't, because population creates demand. Directly.

Cool story. There's a very nice and easy way that doesn't require very close and careful management and tons of short-term artificial manipulation just to ease the growing and shrinking pains. It's called just let it happen and people who fall through the cracks fall through the cracks. If you think there isn't some magic point of near perfection, you're delusional. You just want to avoid absolutely any amount of sadness, unfortunate circumstance, etc, at the expense of some happiness you deem "worth sacrificing" from everyone else. That's the real bullshit that doesn't make sense.

The problem isn't population, or population growth in "wrong" demographics. That's bullshit and it's based on no data and claims that have no basis in fact whatsoever.

The "wrong demographics" are whatever the free market decides they are. We have tons of PhD people (in what society has deemed useless fields) who also can't get a job or make ends meet, especially considering the debt they're in from their education. Stop acting like it's unique to poor people or like my rule only applies to them. Anyone that makes poor financial decisions, lacks the proper support network, and cannot garner the support they need for themselves should suffer for it. There's a reason they lack the network in most cases, and it's no one else's problem to "fix."

[Endus]

Did I ever say it wasn't?

Your entire argument was predicated on that assumption, yes.

Oh so there doesn't exist some perfect homeostatic level of people out there, that can grow and shrink (slowly) to allow for increases and decreases in demands etc?
It would all eventually balance out to perfection if you would let it.

A> This is exactly what you claimed you weren't saying.
B> No, this is horseshit. Nothing you said here is true. Populations do not "balance out". Particularly not when you've created a never-ending wheel of extermination that will continue to kill people in your name.

Cool story. There's a very nice and easy way that doesn't require very close and careful management and tons of short-term artificial manipulation just to ease the growing and shrinking pains. It's called just let it happen and people who fall through the cracks fall through the cracks. If you think there isn't some magic point of near perfection, you're delusional. You just want to avoid absolutely any amount of sadness, unfortunate circumstance, etc, at the expense of some happiness you deem "worth sacrificing" from everyone else. That's the real bullshit that doesn't make sense.

Letting people starve to death isn't functionally different from marching them into gas chambers.

Same human rights abuse. Your argument are the same awful lies that the Nazis in part used to justify their atrocities. If you think I'll just accept your desire to commit new ones, you've got another think coming.

[Deletedaccount1]

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.

I'll just stop you right there. I never said taxation is theft, I don't think that. I'm more of a statist than all of you but I'm also more of a libertarian. Taxation is objectively forced. You go to jail if you do not pay taxes. That is coercion (i.e. force) by definition.

[BeepBoo]

Letting people starve to death isn't functionally different from marching them into gas chambers.

The outcome might not be different, but the reason it happens is entirely different.

In one case, someone is actively going out and committing an act of violence against someone. In the other, someone is being forced to deal with their own situation and shortcomings, regardless of how those happened.

It would be like getting cancer and being the only human. No one's fault you can't get treated. No one's fault you got the disease. You just have to come to terms with that reality.

If you think I'll just accept your desire to commit new ones, you've got another think coming.

Again, no one is committing anything. People not getting help isn't the same as people getting actively hurt. I don't give a damn what you do, but you're delusional if you think someone whipping out a gun and shooting someone else is the same as someone dying while hanging off a cliff as people walk by and ignore them. Blame the parent or bad luck if you need someone to blame for the "unfortunate" death or suffering of a human who is pathetic.

[Endus]

I'll just stop you right there. I never said taxation is theft, I don't think that. I'm more of a statist than all of you but I'm also more of a libertarian. Taxation is objectively forced. You go to jail if you do not pay taxes. That is coercion (i.e. force) by definition.

Here's what you said;

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.

If you want to quibble about "forcibly taking" rather than "theft", fine, but it doesn't change anything, because the "force" in question is just law enforcement. You have a legal obligation, and you're evading it, and that is the law-breaking here. Suggesting that it's "wrong" because there's force involved if you don't comply is like arguing that police shouldn't be allowed to tackle a mass shooter because they might hurt him. It's such a ridiculous argument, on its face, that it's baffling that people like you think it should be taken seriously.

- - - Updated - - -

The outcome might not be different, but the reason it happens is entirely different.

In one case, someone is actively going out and committing an act of violence against someone. In the other, someone is being forced to deal with their own situation and shortcomings, regardless of how those happened.

It would be like getting cancer and being the only human. No one's fault you can't get treated. No one's fault you got the disease. You just have to come to terms with that reality.

What this is like, in this example, is noticing that a lot of people are getting smallpox, but only giving out vaccines to people who can pay $20,000 out of pocket for them. Can't afford it? Die of smallpox. But hey, you're not giving them smallpox, so it's okay, right?

Nope. You're suggesting a monstrous abuse of human rights.

[cordrann]

I'll just stop you right there. I never said taxation is theft, I don't think that. I'm more of a statist than all of you but I'm also more of a libertarian. Taxation is objectively forced. You go to jail if you do not pay taxes. That is coercion (i.e. force) by definition.

If you don't want to pay taxes, don't work and don't buy anything. No one is forcing you to pay taxes. If you choose to engage in the system, you have to pay the toll. When you engage in the economy, you are using government services by choice and thus have to pay for them, it is a really simple concept. Or do you think shoplifting is okay because you shouldn't have to pay for services you don't want to pay for?

[Deletedaccount1]

If you want to quibble about "forcibly taking" rather than "theft", fine, but it doesn't change anything, because the "force" in question is just law enforcement. You have a legal obligation, and you're evading it, and that is the law-breaking here. Suggesting that it's "wrong" because there's force involved if you don't comply is like arguing that police shouldn't be allowed to tackle a mass shooter because they might hurt him. It's such a ridiculous argument, on its face, that it's baffling that people like you think it should be taken seriously.

You need to read Nozick before it is too late. I believe there is still hope for you, you can be saved.

- - - Updated - - -

If you don't want to pay taxes, don't work and don't buy anything. No one is forcing you to pay taxes. If you choose to engage in the system, you have to pay the toll. When you engage in the economy, you are using government services by choice and thus have to pay for them, it is a really simple concept. Or do you think shoplifting is okay because you shouldn't have to pay for services you don't want to pay for?

You don't need governments to have a functional economy. Free markets create spontaneous order and if you don't believe me I'm going to be forced to link a picture of the Hong Kong skyline. Don't make me do that to you bro.

[Shadowferal]

oh for fuck's sake, libertarian arguments always make me nauseous.

[BeepBoo]

What this is like, in this example, is noticing that a lot of people are getting smallpox, but only giving out vaccines to people who can pay $20,000 out of pocket for them. Can't afford it? Die of smallpox. But hey, you're not giving them smallpox, so it's okay, right?

Nope. You're suggesting a monstrous abuse of human rights.

I see nothing wrong here. They would have died without the existence of my help and/or ability anyways. I am the sole proprietor of my ability and my time. I owe it to no one. I'll do with it as I please, so long as I'm not the one causing the <thing> in the first place. Unless you think people don't own themselves, or shouldn't be free to try and make the most of their own unique makeup.

Humans don't have any rights that wouldn't exist outside of what a human is capable of in a vacuum. A human can make noise with their vocal chords? Freedom to use them (and speech, as a derivative). Is alive? Free to continue to exist in the alive state until they die naturally on their own. Can innervate their muscles? Free to do that. And on and on. Those are the types of things that are inalienable rights. Pushing it past that is just trying to enforce your own personal sense of morality.

[jeezusisacasual]

oh for fuck's sake, libertarian arguments always make me nauseous.

They fail to realize that ideology has ended with the more transparent information has become. In the perfect libertarian world every road would have a toll, every fire department would have a price etc etc. There is no free market and will never have a free market due to the controls in which either the host government or the importing government wants to impose, even the US does this. Libertarians forget that the world has moved on past 1906.

[BeepBoo]

They fail to realize that ideology has ended with the more transparent information has become. In the perfect libertarian world every road would have a toll, every fire department would have a price etc etc. There is no free market and will never have a free market due to the controls in which either the host government or the importing government wants to impose, even the US does this. Libertarians forget that the world has moved on past 1906.

All of those things do have a cost already associated with them. Just because they get obfuscated and spread around uncontrollably to people who may or may not derive as much benefit from them as someone else doesn't mean that cost suddenly disappeared. If a stretch of road cost $1 million, it's getting paid somehow. The only caveat is, a road that would have cost $1mil in the private sector now ended up costing $1.5mil in the government sector and has a far worse outcome from a product quality standpoint.

[Shadowferal]

If a stretch of road cost $1 million, it's getting paid somehow. The only caveat is, a road that would have cost $1mil in the private sector now ended up costing $1.5mil in the government sector and has a far worse outcome from a product quality standpoint.

A road that the lowest bidder paid is rarely a quality product.
But then the likes of Alan "Free Market" Greenspan had to eat his words in front of congress when said his ideology was to blame for the '08 Recession.

[jeezusisacasual]

All of those things do have a cost already associated with them. Just because they get obfuscated and spread around uncontrollably to people who may or may not derive as much benefit from them as someone else doesn't mean that cost suddenly disappeared. If a stretch of road cost $1 million, it's getting paid somehow. The only caveat is, a road that would have cost $1mil in the private sector now ended up costing $1.5mil in the government sector and has a far worse outcome from a product quality standpoint.

It depends on the total economic outlook of that public cost is spent. For instance if that highway was being built by folks who desperately need work that would in turn build a community along that road which would further more economic development while also at the same time creating a job provider to all and any whom needs it then sure! What i am against is local / state governments giving out pet projects to family / friends to line their pockets at the expense of the public good, we are a collective not a singular.

[Shadowferal]

Lets be honest, we all want to see this road that this company builds on its dime.

[BeepBoo]

A road that the lowest bidder paid is rarely a quality product.
But then the likes of Alan "Free Market" Greenspan had to eat his words in front of congress when said his ideology was to blame for the '08 Recession.

You're ignoring a key part of the whole "lowest bidder" thing: the quality is predetermined.

You go for the lowest bidder that meets your standards, not just the lowest bidder. If the road ends up shitty, that just means it's like every other backwater road or plenty of other actual main highways that can be found as made and built by the government currently. Meaning someone thought a shittier road that doesn't last was fine.

Also, Alan Greenspan's role in the recession was mild. We've had lower interest rates for longer since 2008, and while I don't recall us ever freezing money supply (which we should IMO) Greenspan didn't actually freeze it like he wanted to. Slowed? Sure. I'd also argue that intentionally slowing the supply of new cash printing is decidedly against free market policies. Which he admitted to as well.

[DisposableHero]

I'll just stop you right there. I never said taxation is theft, I don't think that. I'm more of a statist than all of you but I'm also more of a libertarian. Taxation is objectively forced. You go to jail if you do not pay taxes. That is coercion (i.e. force) by definition.

Labor participation is coerced, if you don't make money you starve, or die of exposure. All of those "consensual economic transactions" are facilitated and underwritten by the labor of others that is coerced to work for substantially less than it's actual value. That is the money of other people the rich are taking. They receive money from consensual economic transactions and then fail to pay a fair share of that money to the laborers who made that transaction possible. So please, feel free to keep licking their boots and pretending that's all above board, while taxing them on their ill gotten gains to support the least fortunate of society is "theft".

[Endus]

Labor participation is coerced, if you don't make money you starve, or die of exposure. All of those "consensual economic transactions" are facilitated and underwritten by the labor of others that is coerced to work for substantially less than it's actual value. That is the money of other people the rich are taking. They receive money from consensual economic transactions and then fail to pay a fair share of that money to the laborers who made that transaction possible. So please, feel free to keep licking their boots and pretending that's all above board, while taxing them on their ill gotten gains to support the least fortunate of society is "theft".

Ironically, the shifting of the labour marked from the current coercive system to a more-free system is a key argument behind implementing a strong living-wage UBI.

Give people the choice to stay home, without hardship, and you'll see employment wages actually settle out at what people's labour is actually worth to them. As opposed to now, where people are generally stuck taking the best of a set of bad deals, and being pushed to consistently undervalue themselves accordingly (because the way owners are making those high profits is by benefiting off the back of these labourers, at their expense).

[Shadowferal]

You're ignoring a key part of the whole "lowest bidder" thing: the quality is predetermined.

"Quality" as defined by a libertarian that also insists on self-regulation.
Good luck with that quality. (NZ tried that with The Building Act 1991 and the country as a whole got shitted on.)

Also, Alan Greenspan's role in the recession was mild.

More from the apologist.
That didn't stop him, the chair of the Federal Reserve from blaming his libertarian ideals in front of everyone.
Because deregulation eventually screws everyone. History proves that time and time again and again.

And here we are...showing off how little some learn from history.

[yellowcrack]

Like every communist's scheme, Yang will suck the money out of the rich.