View Poll Results: Where do you stand?

Voters
95. You may not vote on this poll
  • I don't support Andrew Yang's UBI

    33 34.74%
  • I support Andrew Yang's UBI

    62 65.26%
Page 17 of 26 FirstFirst ...
7
15
16
17
18
19
... LastLast
  1. #321
    Quote Originally Posted by jeezusisacasual View Post
    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.

  2. #322
    Quote Originally Posted by BeepBoo View Post
    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.
    Acquittal doesn't mean exoneration


  3. #323
    Quote Originally Posted by BeepBoo View Post
    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.

  4. #324
    Lets be honest, we all want to see this road that this company builds on its dime.
    Acquittal doesn't mean exoneration


  5. #325
    Quote Originally Posted by Shadowferal View Post
    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.

  6. #326
    Quote Originally Posted by Knadra View Post
    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".

  7. #327
    I Don't Work Here Endus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Ottawa, ON
    Posts
    61,902
    Quote Originally Posted by DisposableHero View Post
    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).

  8. #328
    Quote Originally Posted by BeepBoo View Post
    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.)
    Quote Originally Posted by BeepBoo View Post
    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.
    Acquittal doesn't mean exoneration


  9. #329
    Like every communist's scheme, Yang will suck the money out of the rich.

  10. #330
    i support UBI, because i think it's entirely feasible in our current system.

    tax businesses for automated workers, the worth of each worker they've replaced. tax the rich their fair share. maybe could cut social security, since it'd be redundant. WIC.

    i'd be more than happy to get $1k a month for doing fuck all.

  11. #331
    Quote Originally Posted by derpkitteh View Post
    i support UBI, because i think it's entirely feasible in our current system.

    tax businesses for automated workers, the worth of each worker they've replaced. tax the rich their fair share. maybe could cut social security, since it'd be redundant. WIC.

    i'd be more than happy to get $1k a month for doing fuck all.
    I think that the UBI will just be called social security in a marketing move. I can see things like SNAP, rent allowences and the like of public welfare gets retracted in that sense. The metrics to pay for it are bit more tricky since the US is currently on a race to the bottom ( despite being 1 of 2 nations to tax overseas income almost as heavily as domestic earned ).

  12. #332
    Quote Originally Posted by derpkitteh View Post
    i support UBI, because i think it's entirely feasible in our current system.

    tax businesses for automated workers, the worth of each worker they've replaced. tax the rich their fair share. maybe could cut social security, since it'd be redundant. WIC.

    i'd be more than happy to get $1k a month for doing fuck all.
    This really just seems like you're saying, "I support UBI because I personally don't want to work".

  13. #333
    Quote Originally Posted by jeezusisacasual View Post
    I think that the UBI will just be called social security in a marketing move. I can see things like SNAP, rent allowences and the like of public welfare gets retracted in that sense. The metrics to pay for it are bit more tricky since the US is currently on a race to the bottom ( despite being 1 of 2 nations to tax overseas income almost as heavily as domestic earned ).
    i'd say most things like WIC and other forms of welfare would probably have to be cut to make UBI work. it's like 300bil a month or something like that, maybe even more. but taxing appropriately the rich, and businesses for their automated workers, is a big dent in the cost.

    Quote Originally Posted by Spectral View Post
    This really just seems like you're saying, "I support UBI because I personally don't want to work".
    Yes.

    also, it's just a more sensible system than having 20 different things you have to apply for. wellfare, wic, snap, whatever the fuck all that shit is. it's just more simple to have one single thing going out each month.

  14. #334
    I Don't Work Here Endus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Ottawa, ON
    Posts
    61,902
    Quote Originally Posted by Spectral View Post
    This really just seems like you're saying, "I support UBI because I personally don't want to work".
    And here's the core of the issue;

    So what if she is?

    There aren't enough jobs for everyone who wants one, let alone everyone who can work.
    The economy only survives if consumers have money to use on consumption.
    Pushing more people into hardship and thus into the labor force to attempt to escape hardship doesn't create any jobs, it just makes everything more difficult for everyone who's unemployed.

  15. #335
    Quote Originally Posted by Endus View Post
    And here's the core of the issue;

    So what if she is?

    There aren't enough jobs for everyone who wants one, let alone everyone who can work.
    The economy only survives if consumers have money to use on consumption.
    Pushing more people into hardship and thus into the labor force to attempt to escape hardship doesn't create any jobs, it just makes everything more difficult for everyone who's unemployed.
    That's an argument for the policy, but still an indictment of the character of someone that just brazenly says, "Yeah, I want to raise your taxes to give me money so I don't have to work". It's one thing to say "it's a good thing to help people who can't find work" and very different to just openly make it plain that the goal is to encourage sloth.

  16. #336
    Quote Originally Posted by Spectral View Post
    That's an argument for the policy, but still an indictment of the character of someone that just brazenly says, "Yeah, I want to raise your taxes to give me money so I don't have to work". It's one thing to say "it's a good thing to help people who can't find work" and very different to just openly make it plain that the goal is to encourage sloth.
    This is a case of you must work as hard as i do otherwise you do not get anything or do not deserve that pay. My job is a breeze compared to my brothers and yet i make twice as much money and live abroad, but that never gets talked about either. Its a punching down kind of complaint which to me is pointless in the grand scheme of things. Just because someone else is having an easier time does not make your struggle worse or less valuable is the point of the message.

  17. #337
    Quote Originally Posted by jeezusisacasual View Post
    This is a case of you must work as hard as i do otherwise you do not get anything or do not deserve that pay. My job is a breeze compared to my brothers and yet i make twice as much money and live abroad, but that never gets talked about either. Its a punching down kind of complaint which to me is pointless in the grand scheme of things. Just because someone else is having an easier time does not make your struggle worse or less valuable is the point of the message.
    I don't think this is the mistake I'm making. I word harder than some and less than others, I have no delusions that amount of work correlates tightly to worth, value, or quality of life. I expect to participate in a shared system where we mitigate bad luck, differential success, and so on to provide reasonable lives to live for my countrymen that aren't as fortunate as I am. I don't object to that in any way. What I do object to is someone just openly stating that they'd like to take what I work for because they don't really want to work at all.

  18. #338
    I Don't Work Here Endus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Ottawa, ON
    Posts
    61,902
    Quote Originally Posted by Spectral View Post
    That's an argument for the policy, but still an indictment of the character of someone that just brazenly says, "Yeah, I want to raise your taxes to give me money so I don't have to work". It's one thing to say "it's a good thing to help people who can't find work" and very different to just openly make it plain that the goal is to encourage sloth.
    That you're calling it "sloth" is an attempt to appeal to emotion, rather than reason.

    There are myriad reasons why someone might not want to be part of the labor force. And many people aren't part of the labor force, and don't get accused of "sloth" for their decision.

    You're trying to approach economic policy from a point of view that lets you be condescending and judgemental towards individuals for their decisions. That's not a reasonable approach.

    Plus, let's consider the alternative. Even if an individual is slothful and exploitative, do you really think that them being made to work a job to get by is going to be a valuable hire for their employer, over someone who actually wants the job? They'll do as little as they can and find ways to exploit their job, too. Wouldn't the job market just be better off if people like that weren't expected or obliged by hardship to participate? I don't see what we gain, here, other than trying to cause suffering to people because we don't like them.
    Last edited by Endus; 2019-12-13 at 08:54 PM.

  19. #339
    Quote Originally Posted by Endus View Post
    That you're calling it "sloth" is an attempt to appeal to emotion, rather than reason.

    There are myriad reasons why someone might not want to be part of the labor force. And many people aren't part of the labor force, and don't get accused of "sloth" for their decision.

    You're trying to approach economic policy from a point of view that lets you be condescending and judgemental towards individuals for their decisions. That's not a reasonable approach.
    The person in question is literally just saying they don't want to work. There's not even a pretense that they need to do something socially important or that it's a challenge for some reason - just a flat statement that they don't wanna work, so giving them money would be nice.

    Yes, I'm going to be condescending and judge that.

  20. #340
    I Don't Work Here Endus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Ottawa, ON
    Posts
    61,902
    Quote Originally Posted by Spectral View Post
    The person in question is literally just saying they don't want to work. There's not even a pretense that they need to do something socially important or that it's a challenge for some reason - just a flat statement that they don't wanna work, so giving them money would be nice.
    And again; so what?

    You haven't made an argument why they should work. You made an emotional appeal to this being a character defect, but that both doesn't speak to why they should be made to work, and it explains why they likely shouldn't. All you've really said is you don't like them as a person, but that's not a position you can base systemic economic policy upon.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •