It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

‘Basic income’ poll: 64% of Europeans would vote in favor!

page: 10
17
<< 7  8  9    11  12  13 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 24 2016 @ 11:42 AM
link   

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: Aazadan

originally posted by: ScepticScot
Actually there are a lot of very valid arguments against UBI, the simplest if which is that there is a lot more socially useful ways to guarantee a minimum income. A job guarantee scheme would provide a similar set minimum income but while actually achieving something productive and providing a host of social and economic benefits.
It would also obviously require additional schemes for those unable to work but I think think this is much better use of resources than a UBI and has many more benefits.


A basic income creates jobs. If everyone has money to spend and they go spend it, businesses can't handle the volume, this forces them to bring on someone to work. That someone will need a wage they consider worth it. It results in a more market driven approach than we currently have where those at the bottom of the totem pole work mostly under duress and with no bargaining power.


I agree it does that. I just don't think it is the best way to do that.
A job guarantee scheme also creates minimum income for most, stabilises prices, provides useful labour for social projects, can improve skills of long term unemployed and is intrinsically counter cyclical.


A job guarantee is forcing a business to hire someone. Basic income is getting your tax money back.




posted on May, 24 2016 @ 11:46 AM
link   
a reply to: Stormdancer777

enhancing their lives and letting them take our jobs working for da man, sounds like win, win to me. Yet always striving to that end goal of equality.



posted on May, 24 2016 @ 11:51 AM
link   

originally posted by: luthier

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: Aazadan

originally posted by: ScepticScot
Actually there are a lot of very valid arguments against UBI, the simplest if which is that there is a lot more socially useful ways to guarantee a minimum income. A job guarantee scheme would provide a similar set minimum income but while actually achieving something productive and providing a host of social and economic benefits.
It would also obviously require additional schemes for those unable to work but I think think this is much better use of resources than a UBI and has many more benefits.


A basic income creates jobs. If everyone has money to spend and they go spend it, businesses can't handle the volume, this forces them to bring on someone to work. That someone will need a wage they consider worth it. It results in a more market driven approach than we currently have where those at the bottom of the totem pole work mostly under duress and with no bargaining power.


I agree it does that. I just don't think it is the best way to do that.
A job guarantee scheme also creates minimum income for most, stabilises prices, provides useful labour for social projects, can improve skills of long term unemployed and is intrinsically counter cyclical.


A job guarantee is forcing a business to hire someone. Basic income is getting your tax money back.

No one is forced to higher someone.
A UBI increases tax as you effectively have to tax it back off higher earners.



posted on May, 24 2016 @ 11:57 AM
link   

originally posted by: luthier

originally posted by: Dfairlite

originally posted by: luthier

originally posted by: Dfairlite

originally posted by: luthier

originally posted by: Dfairlite

originally posted by: luthier

originally posted by: Dfairlite

originally posted by: luthier

originally posted by: Dfairlite

originally posted by: ScepticScot
a reply to: Dfairlite

Yes because educational achievement, health outcomes and poverty levels are all bunk. We should just measure quality of life by suicide rates.......


If a very smart, healthy, and wealthy person kills themselves, were they happy? Yet they'd tick all of the quality of life boxes for you.


Thats not the psychology at all. The suicide rates go up as society gets elevated. This is a very well studied phenomenon. Why are the suicide rates of horrible countries like Bulgaria lower than the US or Canada? Because those people are far too busy surviving and trying to feed themselves to be depressed and have time to think.

There are many issues even in your endocrine system that occur the easier life is. Especially the less physically active you are. Your glands need to produce the hormones they were made for and your body chemistry even. Even using your adrenaline is important.



So how does that translate to a high quality of life? I mean, is depression a better quality of life than surviving?

Does the suicide rate equal poverty rate?
Or wealth distribution, access to time off to be with your family etc? Nope.

How many people re we talking about comiting suicide compaired to living at a high standard.

Compaired to how many people live in poverty and struggle to get by without access to bettering themselves.



As people get higher on the quality of life scale they kill themselves more often. It's not linear, of course, but it flies in the face of the metric.

If people actually had a higher quality of life they would kill themselves at a lower rate.


This is a case where common sense doesn't equal the data. Seriously its been studied. Check it out.



I have checked it out. No one knows the answer. The answer is that we will have to wait for more data. Or better interpreted: The data we have does not match. Calling something a quality of life indicator is setting the argument up on a false foundation. quality of life comes from so many aspects (probably hundreds or thousands of data points per individual) but these quality of life metrics rely on usually fewer than two dozen.

This means they aren't actually quality of life metrics. They are metrics of personal achievement. Personal achievement likely only makes up a small subset of a true quality of life metric.


Thats actually false. In a society like the US the pressure to be succeful and achieve actually creates a suicidal framework. Your start up failed with your families life savings. Etc.


What part of it is false? I agree with the rest of your statement, outside of the first sentence. Quality of life metrics are lacking for what they attempt to portray. The suicidal framework you point out would be a great part of a true quality of life metric.


I don't think so. It's personal factor and unknown. It's also a branch of freedom and mking bad choices that ruin your life. That doesn't mean the quality of life is bad in the society it means people are free to make bad choices. A country like Iran may not have a very high suicide rate but it comes from fear of God. Happiness that you could be right and is a very ambigous claim. A person's happiness is subjective and somewhat personal. But if you look t society s whole o guess you still see if the structure makes people happy or not regardless of quality of life or access to a high standard of living.


It's all connected and all quantifiable. Like I said, a true quality of life metric would embody a lot of data points. Most of those points you made would make good data for a quality of life metric.

My only argument with you has been that quality of life metrics as they are, lack severely. Well that and the fact that these "social democracies" are actually mostly monarchies.



posted on May, 24 2016 @ 11:59 AM
link   

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: luthier

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: Aazadan

originally posted by: ScepticScot
Actually there are a lot of very valid arguments against UBI, the simplest if which is that there is a lot more socially useful ways to guarantee a minimum income. A job guarantee scheme would provide a similar set minimum income but while actually achieving something productive and providing a host of social and economic benefits.
It would also obviously require additional schemes for those unable to work but I think think this is much better use of resources than a UBI and has many more benefits.


A basic income creates jobs. If everyone has money to spend and they go spend it, businesses can't handle the volume, this forces them to bring on someone to work. That someone will need a wage they consider worth it. It results in a more market driven approach than we currently have where those at the bottom of the totem pole work mostly under duress and with no bargaining power.


I agree it does that. I just don't think it is the best way to do that.
A job guarantee scheme also creates minimum income for most, stabilises prices, provides useful labour for social projects, can improve skills of long term unemployed and is intrinsically counter cyclical.


A job guarantee is forcing a business to hire someone. Basic income is getting your tax money back.

No one is forced to higher someone.
A UBI increases tax as you effectively have to tax it back off higher earners.


So how do you guarantee a job? With government beauracracy setting up jobs?

Does a GI change tax rates? Or does the spending take care of it in the market and job growth? I don't know.

I do know as far as personal liberty goes not having an IRS, ssi, and such groups invading my life would be a positive.
edit on 24-5-2016 by luthier because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 24 2016 @ 12:03 PM
link   

originally posted by: Dfairlite

originally posted by: luthier

originally posted by: Dfairlite

originally posted by: luthier

originally posted by: Dfairlite

originally posted by: luthier

originally posted by: Dfairlite

originally posted by: luthier

originally posted by: Dfairlite

originally posted by: luthier

originally posted by: Dfairlite

originally posted by: ScepticScot
a reply to: Dfairlite

Yes because educational achievement, health outcomes and poverty levels are all bunk. We should just measure quality of life by suicide rates.......


If a very smart, healthy, and wealthy person kills themselves, were they happy? Yet they'd tick all of the quality of life boxes for you.


Thats not the psychology at all. The suicide rates go up as society gets elevated. This is a very well studied phenomenon. Why are the suicide rates of horrible countries like Bulgaria lower than the US or Canada? Because those people are far too busy surviving and trying to feed themselves to be depressed and have time to think.

There are many issues even in your endocrine system that occur the easier life is. Especially the less physically active you are. Your glands need to produce the hormones they were made for and your body chemistry even. Even using your adrenaline is important.



So how does that translate to a high quality of life? I mean, is depression a better quality of life than surviving?

Does the suicide rate equal poverty rate?
Or wealth distribution, access to time off to be with your family etc? Nope.

How many people re we talking about comiting suicide compaired to living at a high standard.

Compaired to how many people live in poverty and struggle to get by without access to bettering themselves.



As people get higher on the quality of life scale they kill themselves more often. It's not linear, of course, but it flies in the face of the metric.

If people actually had a higher quality of life they would kill themselves at a lower rate.


This is a case where common sense doesn't equal the data. Seriously its been studied. Check it out.



I have checked it out. No one knows the answer. The answer is that we will have to wait for more data. Or better interpreted: The data we have does not match. Calling something a quality of life indicator is setting the argument up on a false foundation. quality of life comes from so many aspects (probably hundreds or thousands of data points per individual) but these quality of life metrics rely on usually fewer than two dozen.

This means they aren't actually quality of life metrics. They are metrics of personal achievement. Personal achievement likely only makes up a small subset of a true quality of life metric.


Thats actually false. In a society like the US the pressure to be succeful and achieve actually creates a suicidal framework. Your start up failed with your families life savings. Etc.


What part of it is false? I agree with the rest of your statement, outside of the first sentence. Quality of life metrics are lacking for what they attempt to portray. The suicidal framework you point out would be a great part of a true quality of life metric.


I don't think so. It's personal factor and unknown. It's also a branch of freedom and mking bad choices that ruin your life. That doesn't mean the quality of life is bad in the society it means people are free to make bad choices. A country like Iran may not have a very high suicide rate but it comes from fear of God. Happiness that you could be right and is a very ambigous claim. A person's happiness is subjective and somewhat personal. But if you look t society s whole o guess you still see if the structure makes people happy or not regardless of quality of life or access to a high standard of living.


It's all connected and all quantifiable. Like I said, a true quality of life metric would embody a lot of data points. Most of those points you made would make good data for a quality of life metric.

My only argument with you has been that quality of life metrics as they are, lack severely. Well that and the fact that these "social democracies" are actually mostly monarchies.


Germany is not a monarchy. France? Those are two pretty big power players.

I think social democracies again are absolutely fine in small homogenous societies.

I think it's a total disaster in the US. Not only will it be exploited our population is so diverse there is no way a government can make social decisions for the whole country unless the states were more soveriegn little countries. Even then out political corruption is so bad it is just a terrible idea. The very least a libertarian needs to come along wipe the board clean and start over for any talk of more gov. IMO.



posted on May, 24 2016 @ 12:10 PM
link   

originally posted by: luthier

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: luthier

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: Aazadan

originally posted by: ScepticScot
Actually there are a lot of very valid arguments against UBI, the simplest if which is that there is a lot more socially useful ways to guarantee a minimum income. A job guarantee scheme would provide a similar set minimum income but while actually achieving something productive and providing a host of social and economic benefits.
It would also obviously require additional schemes for those unable to work but I think think this is much better use of resources than a UBI and has many more benefits.


A basic income creates jobs. If everyone has money to spend and they go spend it, businesses can't handle the volume, this forces them to bring on someone to work. That someone will need a wage they consider worth it. It results in a more market driven approach than we currently have where those at the bottom of the totem pole work mostly under duress and with no bargaining power.


I agree it does that. I just don't think it is the best way to do that.
A job guarantee scheme also creates minimum income for most, stabilises prices, provides useful labour for social projects, can improve skills of long term unemployed and is intrinsically counter cyclical.


A job guarantee is forcing a business to hire someone. Basic income is getting your tax money back.

No one is forced to higher someone.
A UBI increases tax as you effectively have to tax it back off higher earners.


So how do you guarantee a job? With government beauracracy setting up jobs?

Does a GI change tax rates? Or does the spending take care of it in the market and job growth? I don't know.

I do know as far as personal liberty goes not having an IRS, ssi, and such groups invading my life would be a positive.


The government already provides lots of jobs. I don't know about where you live but I can certainly see lots more things that could be done . Infrastructure improvements and repairs, cleaner streets, more support for teachers.

All better use of people's labour and skills than being unemployed.



posted on May, 24 2016 @ 12:22 PM
link   

originally posted by: luthier

originally posted by: Dfairlite

originally posted by: luthier

originally posted by: Dfairlite

originally posted by: luthier

originally posted by: Dfairlite

originally posted by: luthier

originally posted by: Dfairlite

originally posted by: luthier

originally posted by: Dfairlite

originally posted by: luthier

originally posted by: Dfairlite

originally posted by: ScepticScot
a reply to: Dfairlite

Yes because educational achievement, health outcomes and poverty levels are all bunk. We should just measure quality of life by suicide rates.......


If a very smart, healthy, and wealthy person kills themselves, were they happy? Yet they'd tick all of the quality of life boxes for you.


Thats not the psychology at all. The suicide rates go up as society gets elevated. This is a very well studied phenomenon. Why are the suicide rates of horrible countries like Bulgaria lower than the US or Canada? Because those people are far too busy surviving and trying to feed themselves to be depressed and have time to think.

There are many issues even in your endocrine system that occur the easier life is. Especially the less physically active you are. Your glands need to produce the hormones they were made for and your body chemistry even. Even using your adrenaline is important.



So how does that translate to a high quality of life? I mean, is depression a better quality of life than surviving?

Does the suicide rate equal poverty rate?
Or wealth distribution, access to time off to be with your family etc? Nope.

How many people re we talking about comiting suicide compaired to living at a high standard.

Compaired to how many people live in poverty and struggle to get by without access to bettering themselves.



As people get higher on the quality of life scale they kill themselves more often. It's not linear, of course, but it flies in the face of the metric.

If people actually had a higher quality of life they would kill themselves at a lower rate.


This is a case where common sense doesn't equal the data. Seriously its been studied. Check it out.



I have checked it out. No one knows the answer. The answer is that we will have to wait for more data. Or better interpreted: The data we have does not match. Calling something a quality of life indicator is setting the argument up on a false foundation. quality of life comes from so many aspects (probably hundreds or thousands of data points per individual) but these quality of life metrics rely on usually fewer than two dozen.

This means they aren't actually quality of life metrics. They are metrics of personal achievement. Personal achievement likely only makes up a small subset of a true quality of life metric.


Thats actually false. In a society like the US the pressure to be succeful and achieve actually creates a suicidal framework. Your start up failed with your families life savings. Etc.


What part of it is false? I agree with the rest of your statement, outside of the first sentence. Quality of life metrics are lacking for what they attempt to portray. The suicidal framework you point out would be a great part of a true quality of life metric.


I don't think so. It's personal factor and unknown. It's also a branch of freedom and mking bad choices that ruin your life. That doesn't mean the quality of life is bad in the society it means people are free to make bad choices. A country like Iran may not have a very high suicide rate but it comes from fear of God. Happiness that you could be right and is a very ambigous claim. A person's happiness is subjective and somewhat personal. But if you look t society s whole o guess you still see if the structure makes people happy or not regardless of quality of life or access to a high standard of living.


It's all connected and all quantifiable. Like I said, a true quality of life metric would embody a lot of data points. Most of those points you made would make good data for a quality of life metric.

My only argument with you has been that quality of life metrics as they are, lack severely. Well that and the fact that these "social democracies" are actually mostly monarchies.


Germany is not a monarchy. France? Those are two pretty big power players.

I think social democracies again are absolutely fine in small homogenous societies.

I think it's a total disaster in the US. Not only will it be exploited our population is so diverse there is no way a government can make social decisions for the whole country unless the states were more soveriegn little countries. Even then out political corruption is so bad it is just a terrible idea. The very least a libertarian needs to come along wipe the board clean and start over for any talk of more gov. IMO.


I agree on your analysis, but Germany and france aren't the countries most hold up as evidence that socialism and/or giant welfare states work. Normally it's the Scandinavian countries that the socialist apologists point to, which are mostly monarchies.



posted on May, 24 2016 @ 12:33 PM
link   
a reply to: luthier

We won't agree. I have my reasons and you have yours, and I'm fine with that.



posted on May, 24 2016 @ 12:34 PM
link   
a reply to: ScepticScot

Not at all. I'm just showing you what happened.



posted on May, 24 2016 @ 12:39 PM
link   

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: luthier

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: luthier

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: Aazadan

originally posted by: ScepticScot
Actually there are a lot of very valid arguments against UBI, the simplest if which is that there is a lot more socially useful ways to guarantee a minimum income. A job guarantee scheme would provide a similar set minimum income but while actually achieving something productive and providing a host of social and economic benefits.
It would also obviously require additional schemes for those unable to work but I think think this is much better use of resources than a UBI and has many more benefits.


A basic income creates jobs. If everyone has money to spend and they go spend it, businesses can't handle the volume, this forces them to bring on someone to work. That someone will need a wage they consider worth it. It results in a more market driven approach than we currently have where those at the bottom of the totem pole work mostly under duress and with no bargaining power.


I agree it does that. I just don't think it is the best way to do that.
A job guarantee scheme also creates minimum income for most, stabilises prices, provides useful labour for social projects, can improve skills of long term unemployed and is intrinsically counter cyclical.


A job guarantee is forcing a business to hire someone. Basic income is getting your tax money back.

No one is forced to higher someone.
A UBI increases tax as you effectively have to tax it back off higher earners.


So how do you guarantee a job? With government beauracracy setting up jobs?

Does a GI change tax rates? Or does the spending take care of it in the market and job growth? I don't know.

I do know as far as personal liberty goes not having an IRS, ssi, and such groups invading my life would be a positive.


The government already provides lots of jobs. I don't know about where you live but I can certainly see lots more things that could be done . Infrastructure improvements and repairs, cleaner streets, more support for teachers.

All better use of people's labour and skills than being unemployed.


Sure. But the gov will make a Dept of....it will have 12,000 employees doing paperwork and half the work will be done before budget issues arise.

Basically your talking about the new deal replayed.

I think we could offer volunteer work in exchange for say tuition or technical training but it would have to be a state by state deal all done in accordance with their needs. Same I guess could go for your scenario on a township and state level.

What would force these people to work? Lackbof benefits? That may not work with drug addicts and people already in the black market. I suppose you could at least cut if their benefits if it doesn't work.

I don't know it seems like a logistical nightmare for a government that's practically broken.



posted on May, 24 2016 @ 12:49 PM
link   

originally posted by: Dfairlite

originally posted by: luthier

originally posted by: Dfairlite

originally posted by: luthier

originally posted by: Dfairlite

originally posted by: luthier

originally posted by: Dfairlite

originally posted by: luthier

originally posted by: Dfairlite

originally posted by: luthier

originally posted by: Dfairlite

originally posted by: luthier

originally posted by: Dfairlite

originally posted by: ScepticScot
a reply to: Dfairlite

Yes because educational achievement, health outcomes and poverty levels are all bunk. We should just measure quality of life by suicide rates.......


If a very smart, healthy, and wealthy person kills themselves, were they happy? Yet they'd tick all of the quality of life boxes for you.


Thats not the psychology at all. The suicide rates go up as society gets elevated. This is a very well studied phenomenon. Why are the suicide rates of horrible countries like Bulgaria lower than the US or Canada? Because those people are far too busy surviving and trying to feed themselves to be depressed and have time to think.

There are many issues even in your endocrine system that occur the easier life is. Especially the less physically active you are. Your glands need to produce the hormones they were made for and your body chemistry even. Even using your adrenaline is important.



So how does that translate to a high quality of life? I mean, is depression a better quality of life than surviving?

Does the suicide rate equal poverty rate?
Or wealth distribution, access to time off to be with your family etc? Nope.

How many people re we talking about comiting suicide compaired to living at a high standard.

Compaired to how many people live in poverty and struggle to get by without access to bettering themselves.



As people get higher on the quality of life scale they kill themselves more often. It's not linear, of course, but it flies in the face of the metric.

If people actually had a higher quality of life they would kill themselves at a lower rate.


This is a case where common sense doesn't equal the data. Seriously its been studied. Check it out.



I have checked it out. No one knows the answer. The answer is that we will have to wait for more data. Or better interpreted: The data we have does not match. Calling something a quality of life indicator is setting the argument up on a false foundation. quality of life comes from so many aspects (probably hundreds or thousands of data points per individual) but these quality of life metrics rely on usually fewer than two dozen.

This means they aren't actually quality of life metrics. They are metrics of personal achievement. Personal achievement likely only makes up a small subset of a true quality of life metric.


Thats actually false. In a society like the US the pressure to be succeful and achieve actually creates a suicidal framework. Your start up failed with your families life savings. Etc.


What part of it is false? I agree with the rest of your statement, outside of the first sentence. Quality of life metrics are lacking for what they attempt to portray. The suicidal framework you point out would be a great part of a true quality of life metric.


I don't think so. It's personal factor and unknown. It's also a branch of freedom and mking bad choices that ruin your life. That doesn't mean the quality of life is bad in the society it means people are free to make bad choices. A country like Iran may not have a very high suicide rate but it comes from fear of God. Happiness that you could be right and is a very ambigous claim. A person's happiness is subjective and somewhat personal. But if you look t society s whole o guess you still see if the structure makes people happy or not regardless of quality of life or access to a high standard of living.


It's all connected and all quantifiable. Like I said, a true quality of life metric would embody a lot of data points. Most of those points you made would make good data for a quality of life metric.

My only argument with you has been that quality of life metrics as they are, lack severely. Well that and the fact that these "social democracies" are actually mostly monarchies.


Germany is not a monarchy. France? Those are two pretty big power players.

I think social democracies again are absolutely fine in small homogenous societies.

I think it's a total disaster in the US. Not only will it be exploited our population is so diverse there is no way a government can make social decisions for the whole country unless the states were more soveriegn little countries. Even then out political corruption is so bad it is just a terrible idea. The very least a libertarian needs to come along wipe the board clean and start over for any talk of more gov. IMO.


I agree on your analysis, but Germany and france aren't the countries most hold up as evidence that socialism and/or giant welfare states work. Normally it's the Scandinavian countries that the socialist apologists point to, which are mostly monarchies.


This is true. The suicide rates in Scandinavia however at least partly are because of the light and location. Just as a side note.

I see a lot of nonsense from both sidea honestly I think socialists and complete free market capitalists like Mises followers have the same idealistic tendancies. Neither is really completely possible on a large scale and both advocates only see those as solutions. Meanwhile I believe both parties ignore the actual history and data of those philosophical economic principles.

I definitely think both parties have something to give as well.

All the Europeans socialist countries also have capitalism elements. It's not like China (even they of coarse have capitalist elements.).

Meanwhile the rest of us are mixing ideas and solutions to issues some better than others. I think the free market as a goal is a good idea with the understanding corrections are needed when money power corrupts the system. On the socialist side some moderates just want to have a safety net for the people who fall through the cracks that makes sense. Prob that we get more time off so we can actually see our families.



posted on May, 24 2016 @ 01:02 PM
link   
a reply to: luthier

Well there's 12,000 new jobs right off.

There already is a massive bureaucracy to deal with unemployment and other benefits. I would much rather that man power and the labour of people who want to work but can't get a job, went on providing something useful to society.



posted on May, 24 2016 @ 01:12 PM
link   

originally posted by: ScepticScot
a reply to: luthier

Well there's 12,000 new jobs right off.

There already is a massive bureaucracy to deal with unemployment and other benefits. I would much rather that man power and the labour of people who want to work but can't get a job, went on providing something useful to society.

It's not useful. It's busywork. You may as well pay people to do nothing because they are doing worse than nothing. They are taking often large salaries to do jobs that don't need to be done. Basically you just want to control behaviour at that point.

The only people doing work would be those actually fixing things. They would probably get half the money the paperpushers got for no reason.

If giving people a basic income illiminated the stretch of the gov. Thats all good to me. Jobs are for people who actually contribute not busy work with no purpose.

All in all I am the opposite. I think everyone should move towards self employment. Self empowerment and learn to fix their artifacts and homes, and grow their own food thus putting less burden on the system.

It's a radical idea bordering on anarchy but that's how I feel. I don't think people getting 55 dollars an hour to read water meters is a good solution. It may actually be though what the heck do I really know?, it's all just theory after all. Completely made up human concepts.



posted on May, 24 2016 @ 01:23 PM
link   

originally posted by: Kali74
a reply to: Davg80

It's related to a conversation that the entire West needs to have. The industrial age is over in the West, it's not coming back. We need something to replace it ...but what and what do we do in the mean time?


So Kali?

WHERE DOES THE MONEY COME FROM?

And no the rest of the west doesn't need to have that conversation.



posted on May, 24 2016 @ 01:28 PM
link   

originally posted by: neo96

originally posted by: Kali74
a reply to: Davg80

It's related to a conversation that the entire West needs to have. The industrial age is over in the West, it's not coming back. We need something to replace it ...but what and what do we do in the mean time?


So Kali?

WHERE DOES THE MONEY COME FROM?

And no the rest of the west doesn't need to have that conversation.



Uh yes it is and ceos of very large corperations are warning they don't have the same labour needs and it's going to get much worse with automation efficiency. We also can't just pollute and strip the way we did during the industrial revolution. We are just getting done cleaning the messes we made in the US.

The money comes from every wellfare Dept in the country and the irs when they get cut. The extra tax revenue comes from the money being spent.

This is something even free market Austrian school economists have proposed. It gives everybody money and the gov shrinks.
www.libertarianism.org...
www.libertarianism.org...

There should be info there in both Hayak and Milton.
edit on 24-5-2016 by luthier because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 24 2016 @ 01:29 PM
link   
As a pretty hard core libertarian, I had my views challenged by this article. Saying "work harder and support yourself" simply isn't going to cut it in the near future.

Socialism still sucks and is terrible. Capitalism is a step on a longer road, but not the end of the road. Limited Government, Tolerance, Peace, Individualism, and Free Markets are definitely the way to go, but AI and robots are going to replace a vast majority of jobs, both blue collar and white collar AND THIS IS A GOOD THING.

medium.com...



posted on May, 24 2016 @ 01:32 PM
link   

originally posted by: Stormdancer777
I don't understand how this would be a good thing?

Is this besides your regular income?


The way it would work is the same way social security works.

Employers, and employees both contribute percentages of their annual income.

And other taxes get created, and they borrow money from other countries, and print treasures, and print some more fiat currency that devalues the dollar, and then rinse, and repeat.

In other words IT DOESN'T work.
edit on 24-5-2016 by neo96 because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 24 2016 @ 01:33 PM
link   

originally posted by: neo96

originally posted by: Stormdancer777
I don't understand how this would be a good thing?

Is this besides your regular income?


The way it would work is the same way social security works.

Employers, and employees both contribute percentages of their annual income.

And other taxes get created, and they borrow money from other countries, and print treasures, and print some more fiat currency that devalues the dollar, and then rinse, and repeat.

In other words IT DOESN'T work.

www.libertarianism.org...



posted on May, 24 2016 @ 02:16 PM
link   
a reply to: luthier

Why would it be busy work. You really can't think of useful jobs that could be done in your town, county, state?
I can think of hundreds of useful jobs that could be done with just a few miles of where I am.
Greater self sufficiency is great in theory but in the modern specialised economy it is just not realistic.




top topics



 
17
<< 7  8  9    11  12  13 >>

log in

join