Marxism in the USA: Establish a basic income guarantee for all Americans

reply to post by John_Rodger_Cornman


This who idea reminds me of the Romans and the Visigoths.

Visigoths to Rome: "We want a lot of stuff to be happy and safe."
Rome to Visigoths: OK, sure whatever you need.

Then a famine comes and that was that, dead emperor, decimated Roman army. I guess the moral of all this is if you allow Marxism get ready to live with the Goths.

$2000 a month would be a pay raise for me.

I am a disabled Vietnam vet and only get just over $1000 a month.

With a extra $1000 a month i could set up a small machine shop for building things that i want but can not afford.

After a year i might even be able to make stuff to sell at swap meets and have more under the table income.

I think this sounds a little bit like Star Trek.

For those unfamiliar with it, in the Star Trek universe, the people of Earth have outgrown a monetary based economy, and everyone on the planet is supplied with a home, food, and access to any and all resources they might desire to pursue an interest in.

Money is an artificial construct.
Were it not for greed, and selfish ambitions of individuals to have more and/or better than everyone else, as well as desires of power over others, we might have a more level playing field.

Sure, there's lazy people all over the planet that equate to the human equivalent of leeches, lamprey, and other parasites, but, in nature, parasitism fulfills a role.

In a social economy, human parasitism could also fulfill a role in mitigating greed where human parasites are attracted to the fattest sources, thus managing a social environment where the 'haves' self manage in maintaining a lean cross section in burning off economic 'fat' through cooperation with less parasitic, more symbiotic species of people.

People of species mindset toward cooperation, contribution, and advancement above parasitism will certainly do so, and make worthwhile contributions.

Such above presents a more dynamic and self regulating biological approach to resource distribution we've yet to really model to see if it could be successful, or not.

I'm not saying it would work, or projecting how healthy an economy would result from such, but, we see parasitism in nature, just like we see symbiosis, predation, and other roles effectively balanced in healthy, thriving ecologies.

It's something to think about.

signalfire
This is a great idea and I'll tell you why.

People like you restore my faith in humanity.

John_Rodger_Cornman
If we didn't have a FED that would not be true.

Loose change was a good movie.

You and the rest of the right wingers against this petition have absolutely no clue what you're talking about or how the world actually works.

The FED prints but a tiny fraction of the money supply.

Only a tiny percentage of the money supply is physical cash and coins.

The rest, the lion's share, is make-believe cash conjured up by the banks each and every single time they extend a loan to someone or something (a corporation).

The rich conjure up money for themselves by inflating asset prices. That is the current system.

That is why the money supply has been growing exponentially ever since we had private, for profit, monetary system.

That is to say, a banking system.

Banks create the nation's currency. All banks. Every nation's.

Each and every single time they extend a loan.

Naturally, most people are simply too bloody slow to comprehend this.

And since right wingers are, by their virtue of being right wingers, not the sharpest tools in the shed...

If you've ever bought something on bank credit in your life please, for #'s sake, realise that that was newly conjured up fictional cash you used to buy what you did.

The money in your bank isn't real cash. It doesn't physically exists.

It's just promises to pay, on demand, said amount of cash. Which doesn't really exist.

Which is why bank runs happen and spread.

There's 30~35 more drawing rights against the banks for cash then there's ever cash held in reserve by the bank.

You clueless simpletons.

And yet here you are protesting any attempt whatsoever to skew the game less in your disadvantage and more in your advantage, as ordinary - most likely working for a living - folk.

What the banking system does is to lend the same cash over and over again at the same time to different people.

Which is functionally equivalent to loaning counterfeit money.

Which is the actual source of inflation, which is a monetary phenomenon.

Wake the # up already.

Even your neoliberal god proposed something akin to a guaranteed/unconditional basic income:



You peons.

Boy, your right wing really did a number on you, didn't it?

In the current system the rich filth parasites get to conjure up out of thin air all the money they want for themselves.

Yet you won't even entertain the thought of having a cut for yourselves.

reply to post by AliceBleachWhite


I think the "Star Trek Universe" analogy is a good one.

Which is why this would never work.

1. We've not had a major nuclear war decimating the majority of the population.
2. Our society is not mature enough to live in the "Star Trek Universe". We are war-mongering and petty. The human species is populated with the lazy, the greedy, the envious, the ones that would steal.

If everyone had the basics, there would always be a sub-set of the population that would want more. If I knew that working harder would get me more "stuff" then I would work harder.
Then people would be envious.
Then they would covet.
Then they would steal.

If I didn't get more by working harder, then the incentive to work harder would be lost.

beezzer
2. Our society is not mature enough to live in the "Star Trek Universe". We are war-mongering and petty. The human species is populated with the lazy, the greedy, the envious, the ones that would steal.

You're describing your (right wing) kind perfectly.

Pejeu

beezzer
2. Our society is not mature enough to live in the "Star Trek Universe". We are war-mongering and petty. The human species is populated with the lazy, the greedy, the envious, the ones that would steal.

You're describing your (right wing) kind perfectly.

You envision a utopian society, yet abhor anyone who disagrees with you.

Good luck with that.

reply to post by beezzer


You are talking about incentive to work.

Isn´t something enough of an incentive when you can afford more luxuries than others?

What would be wrong in creating situation, where people, who do not work, can live easily, but more modestly, while people who work can afford significantly more...

Considering there is service sector automation coming up in the near future, that is definitely one of the possible solutions to the problem, as there will not be enough jobs for everybody. Then why not take advantage of it and create a situation, where no one who does not work can survive without any issues, eat healthily (not starve) and do whatever they want, while the ones who work can afford better tech, larger houses, nicer cars etc.

This is simply absurd that with current technology we have people need to work in order to survive. Considering how popular are many open-source project, where volunteers around the world create software, which is free for everybody to use, there would definitely be enough volunteers, who would help to build the machines needed or update (advance) the software for machines that would benefit everybody else, including themselves.

As technology advances definetely a point comes where there will not be enough jobs for everybody. That is possible the best solution, as the other option would simply lie in a dog-eat-dog society, where many people can not simply live, as there are no jobs and you need money to survive. Some kind of solution offered in the OP would help solving the issue. Incentive to work for many would simply shift from survival to affording more stuff and better lifestyle, so everybody has a choice. Personal responsibility is still awarded...

Butt butt butt!

If people aren't starving or living under bridges left and right that's akin to socialism!

They do need to find a way for workers to get paid more than investors. The way it works right now, anyone with tons of money already can invest in the company you work for and drain profits that a larger percent should go to the work force instead. People working for pennies just to feed their family will never be able to be investors.

Rich people like the Romney family just use their money to leach money off companies rather than the profits going to real workers.

I'm talking 2nd tier investors are just leaches. Obviously company owners and founders deserve a large cut of the profits but not just any olé stock market purchaser.

Maybe companies should be forced to give workers equal share of stock matching stocks sold to 2nd tier investors...

System is rigged currently.

reply to post by Cabin


The problem I see, is that if money (currency) were not an issue, then something else would take it's place.

Instead of money, say it is iPads. The average person, getting the basics would have one. The person who works harder, has two.

There would be a "class" discrepancy of iPads. iPad envy. It would be unfair. Here is one family trying to get by on just one iPad where that greedy bastard over there has 2.

Government would step in to correct that iPad discrepancy, to re-distribute iPads. To make everything fair.

If it isn't iPads, or currency, it could be coloured rocks, shiny baubles, carved sticks.

You're grasping at straws. Cabin already explained that people would start working for luxury they couldn't afford on the guaranteed income.

Like Samsung Galaxy smartphones.

Not just to eat and keep a roof over their head.

Why the rich scum build artificial islands with profits from their phoney money operation.

Pejeu
You're grasping at straws. Cabin already explained that people would start working for luxury they couldn't afford on the guaranteed income.

Like Samsung Galaxy smartphones.

Not just to eat and keep a roof over their head.

Why the rich scum build artificial islands with profits from their phoney money operation.

I'm being practical.

You're being idealistic.

signalfire
This is a great idea and I'll tell you why.

Firstly, the money is all fake, that's been proven a trillion times over this past few years.

So, if you have a guaranteed income, you could sit on your laurels or your ass and just watch teevee all day long. Or if you had a bit more gumption than that, you would now be free to actually do what you WANTED to, what you were good at, what fed your soul, what seemed to need to be done.

In Denmark, college students are paid a monthly stipend of about 1K to go to college and their tuition is free. Most end up ahead of the game with money in the bank when they finish, which goes a long ways towards making the next few years quite productive, rather than having the worry of a 50K nondischargeable loan hanging over their heads, like in our wonderful Darwinistic capitalistic system where suicides have almost doubled in the past 5 years.

Yea you could say to a degree that over here we cater to the "poor" and drive our best and brightest into debt.

You could say that but must also consider that very good students can go just about anywhere and get substantial academic scholarships.

Its the middle of the road c+b students that really fund the machine one way or another and then cant find a job. Poor suckers. The educations systems sees them as gravy train money bags or money transfer units knowing that after graduation they will drive a bus for the rest of their lives to pay for their needless education....but the university is not going to tell them that.

beezzer
reply to post by AliceBleachWhite

 

I think the "Star Trek Universe" analogy is a good one.

Which is why this would never work.

1. We've not had a major nuclear war decimating the majority of the population.
2. Our society is not mature enough to live in the "Star Trek Universe". We are war-mongering and petty. The human species is populated with the lazy, the greedy, the envious, the ones that would steal.

If everyone had the basics, there would always be a sub-set of the population that would want more. If I knew that working harder would get me more "stuff" then I would work harder.
Then people would be envious.
Then they would covet.
Then they would steal.

If I didn't get more by working harder, then the incentive to work harder would be lost.

In a moneyless society where everything is free to those who work, and those who refuse to work go to jail, what could you possibly accumulate that someone would want to steal?

There is so much absurdity going on already with fake "gold" in Fort Knox where everyone with a brain already knows it doesn't exist...raising the debt ceilings....mindless spending of BILLIONS on whatever crap....so that the idea of just sending every American a $2000 check (even if it goes against any logic at first)...doesn't even seem THAT absurd anymore.

And now...please tell us what the idea of sending everyone $2000 (regardless whether this is actually a viable thing to do)...has ANYTHING to do with Marxism?

Is a single action already enough to transform an entire system "into Marxism"? Do you even know what Marxism is?
Wouldn't we (according to your criterion) already be "in Marxism" since we obviously pay taxes? (Or is it simply the fact that anyone would get a "guaranteed income" in the mail every month automatically would make the system into "Marxism"? Please elaborate)

reply to post by NoRulesAllowed


"Sending" everyone $2000 a month is naked wealth redistribution, even Marx was a little more coy than that.

Again, why must I pay to keep entitled freeloaders comfortable in their poverty?

Wasting human lives in the name of 'compassion' is what the ruling class incites the useful ignorant to strive towards. Can anyone guess why that is demonstrably so?

reply to post by TheWrightWing


Always with the "why must I pay" comments

As if you had any idea where your taxes go at the moment.

beezzer
reply to post by Cabin

 

The problem I see, is that if money (currency) were not an issue, then something else would take it's place.

Instead of money, say it is iPads. The average person, getting the basics would have one. The person who works harder, has two.

There would be a "class" discrepancy of iPads. iPad envy. It would be unfair. Here is one family trying to get by on just one iPad where that greedy bastard over there has 2.

Government would step in to correct that iPad discrepancy, to re-distribute iPads. To make everything fair.

If it isn't iPads, or currency, it could be coloured rocks, shiny baubles, carved sticks.

The only things I can envision taking the place of currency would be drugs, alcohol, and sex. I wouldn't require anyone to produce illicit drugs or alcohol, but I would make it legal for people to produce their own. Like I said if everything was free, what could your neighbors possibly possess that you would be willing to trade your poppy or cocoa for? Sex? What if there are other growers in the area that would rather you help them build an addition on their house? You would be hard pressed to find someone who would trade their body for your drugs. At the same time, why would I help Mr. Jones build an addition rather than grow my own pot?

Do you think there would still be strip clubs? Have you ever tried to slip a can of green beans under a g-string?