Universal Basic Income is a scam. - Page 4 - Politics Forum.org | PoFo

Wandering the information superhighway, he came upon the last refuge of civilization, PoFo, the only forum on the internet ...

"It's the economy, stupid!"

Moderator: PoFo Economics & Capitalism Mods

Forum rules: No one line posts please.
#15191880
Pants-of-dog wrote:If the plan is to get homeless people to have housing, give them free unconditional housing. This is called the Housing First approach and works great wherever it is applied.

UBI is designed to do many things. It not only helps people get off other benefit programs, it also reduces all sorts of anxiety, probably reduces sexual harassment in the workplace, helps people finish schooling, lets people with significant disabilities not have to worry, helps creat financial stability, and a whole host of other benefits.


The plan should not be to simply provide people housing. The plan should be to get people to be able to provide for their own housing.

I have no idea where the sexual harassment claim comes from. There's already disability benefits for people, I also know people with disabilities (ie: mild cognitive issues) who don't work and collect a cheque where they are clearly able to work in low skill jobs.

It seems odd to ignore all of these benefits because of a dubious claim that it causes dependency, especially when it is a fact that almost all of us depend on a paycheque every two weeks in order to survive. That dependence creates all sorts of problems.


There's a huge difference between someone providing your means for you and doing it yourself. One is called dependence, the other is called independence.

These problems are fundamental to human existence. Life is a never-ending series of problems you're required to solve in order to function, or to achieve anything. Are you seriously complaining about the burden of having to work in order to have the means of survival? It's what makes society function. There's been no time in human history where people didn't have to get up in the morning and go to work in order to have the things necessary for survival like food, clothes, housing. Every single animal organism has to do this. It is the fundamental law of nature. The mother bird feeds her young until they are big enough and then she boots them out of her nest so they can fly off and survive on their own. This is not cruel, this is for their own good. For the same reason, I am not cruel for wanting someone to fly on their own when they are able.

What you want to do is have government take the place of mother bird and feed her dependents indefinitely because you feel sorry for people because life can have anxiety and barriers to overcome etc. Overcoming these barriers and fears is the entire point of life, it builds resiliency and competence, and the only way we become independent adults capable of supporting ourselves and then a family of our own. The results of your proposal is to make people weaker, like the adult child who never moves out of the house. This is cruelty disguised as compassion.

The concept of a social safety net is to catch people as they are falling so you can get them back on their feet safely, it isn't to provide permanent dependence if self-sufficiency is possible. I'm not saying don't help people in need, i'm saying incentivize self-sufficiency.

There's a saying that workers in longterm care homes have: Never do anything for the client that they're able to do themselves.
#15191885
Unthinking Majority wrote:The plan should not be to simply provide people housing. The plan should be to get people to be able to provide for their own housing.


Why? Is there evidence that your approach works better than the existing Housing First programs?

I have no idea where the sexual harassment claim comes from.


Would you like me to explain how UBI would significantly reduce sexual harassment in the workplace?

There's already disability benefits for people, I also know people with disabilities (ie: mild cognitive issues) who don't work and collect a cheque where they are clearly able to work in low skill jobs.


I know people who also could work in low skill jobs and even high skill jobs but probably should not due to their disabilities.

There's a huge difference between someone providing your means for you and doing it yourself. One is called dependence, the other is called independence.


Sure, if you want to define things this specific way, go ahead.

Did you ever find that evidence that UBI causes dependency?

These problems are fundamental to human existence. Life is a never-ending series of problems you're required to solve in order to function, or to achieve anything. Are you seriously complaining about the burden of having to work in order to have the means of survival? It's what makes society function. There's been no time in human history where people didn't have to get up in the morning and go to work in order to have the things necessary for survival like food, clothes, housing. Every single animal organism has to do this. It is the fundamental law of nature. The mother bird feeds her young until they are big enough and then she boots them out of her nest so they can fly off and survive on their own. This is not cruel, this is for their own good. For the same reason, I am not cruel for wanting someone to fly on their own when they are able.

What you want to do is have government take the place of mother bird and feed her dependents indefinitely because you feel sorry for people because life can have anxiety and barriers to overcome etc. Overcoming these barriers and fears is the entire point of life, it builds resiliency and competence, and the only way we become independent adults capable of supporting ourselves and then a family of our own. The results of your proposal is to make people weaker, like the adult child who never moves out of the house. This is cruelty disguised as compassion.

The concept of a social safety net is to catch people as they are falling so you can get them back on their feet safely, it isn't to provide permanent dependence if self-sufficiency is possible. I'm not saying don't help people in need, i'm saying incentivize self-sufficiency.

There's a saying that workers in longterm care homes have: Never do anything for the client that they're able to do themselves.


This seems to be a logical fallacy where natural is good, and having to work in capitalism is natural.

I get the feeling most people would use their UBI for basic survival stuff like food and rent. Then they would work for extra money to buy whatever luxury products they want. They would take time off work for going to school, raising small kids, being a caregiver for family, dealing with illness, or retirement.

The only people who would live off of it full time are probably people with health issues that otherwise prevent them from working anyway. In which case, they would probably focus on their health instead of the very stressful and unsuccessful life they live in modern capitalism, where they have to work full time, while trying to access health care for their problems, while dealing with the actual health problem, making it difficult to do any of these things.
#15191891
Unthinking Majority wrote:The plan should not be to simply provide people housing. The plan should be to get people to be able to provide for their own housing.

Housing can be very cheap, all you need is a shed and access to cleanish water and waste disposal.

Are you seriously complaining about the burden of having to work in order to have the means of survival?

No I'm complaining about the vast amount of work required to pay the costs of land monopolisation, to fulfil health safety regulation, planning laws, diversity rules, the vast burden of the modern bureaucracy. I'm also complaining about the continual sabotage of us making a living, of which the lock downs are only the most extreme and recent examples. To produce or earn the means of survival for a single person actually requires relatively minimal hours labour in a modern western economy. I don't drink alcohol or take recreational drugs, but they could also be reduced or purchased for very little labour if it wasn't for laws and regulations.

The idea that there is some clear demarcation between dependence and independence is libertarian fantasy. We're all dependant on the State. The only exceptions to that are men like Saddam Hussein. He wasn't dependant on the state, he was the state. The main problem with national basic income is not people choosing to live off it and doing no other work, there might be a few spiritual types who would do this but the vast majority of people are always desiring to consume more. Libertarians show so little faith in the overwhelming majority of the population's desire of to consume more.

No the problem is people taking NBI and supplementing their income through criminality or people not properly reporting their other income. To make the sums work for NBI, you need to get people to start paying back their benefit at fairly high marginal tax rate. However to large extent these two problems already burden us with the current tax and benefit system.
Last edited by Rich on 23 Sep 2021 23:01, edited 1 time in total.
#15191893
Pants-of-dog wrote:Would you like me to explain how UBI would significantly reduce sexual harassment in the workplace?

If you keep asking me evidence for my claims then I don't want hypotheticals either I want evidence.

I know people who also could work in low skill jobs and even high skill jobs but probably should not due to their disabilities.


If your health means you shouldn't work then you should be on disability or whatnot. But you shouldn't be the judge of that, a doctor should be. People lie all the time.

This seems to be a logical fallacy where natural is good, and having to work in capitalism is natural.


Capitalism isn't natural, but working is. Fact: society doesn't function without people working. This fantasy where people should be able to work or not work depending on their whims is Marxist nonsense.

I get the feeling most people would use their UBI for basic survival stuff like food and rent. Then they would work for extra money to buy whatever luxury products they want. They would take time off work for going to school, raising small kids, being a caregiver for family, dealing with illness, or retirement.

The only people who would live off of it full time are probably people with health issues that otherwise prevent them from working anyway. In which case, they would probably focus on their health instead of the very stressful and unsuccessful life they live in modern capitalism, where they have to work full time, while trying to access health care for their problems, while dealing with the actual health problem, making it difficult to do any of these things.


If you have a disability, or need time off work to deal with illness, or want to retire, or need to caregive, or need maternity leave etc there's already government benefits for every single one of these needs. If you want to expand them a bit, sure fine. Why is UBI needed, other than to create your Marxist goal where people don't have to work if they simply don't want to?

These programs all exist with conditions where you have to provide evidence to the government for all of these needs. The point of this is so people don't abuse the system and freeride. The only valid argument I've heard for UBI is that it would simplify the benefits process while reducing admin costs for all these other programs and UBI is often sold this way, but clearly many UBI proponents have other goals in mind which I don't agree with.

With UBI i'm sure people will do all sorts of useful things with it, but there will also be ie: lazy college students who sit on their butts in the summer and do nothing while collecting a check. We need programs with conditions to help those in need while preventing the freeriders. Unconditional free money for all who want it is illogical because there is limited funding (except in the minds of some utopian MMT'ers). Instead of giving 20k to a legit disabled person and 20k to a freerider, i'd rather give 40k to the disabled person and nothing to the freerider. It's a misallocation of funding.
#15191904
Unthinking Majority wrote:If you keep asking me evidence for my claims then I don't want hypotheticals either I want evidence.


Do you want evidence that women stay in dangerous relationships because of financial dependence?

Or evidence that UBI would negate this financial dependence?

If your health means you shouldn't work then you should be on disability or whatnot. But you shouldn't be the judge of that, a doctor should be. People lie all the time.


With UBI, we would not need doctors or anyone else to decide all of that. People could decide for themsleves.

Capitalism isn't natural, but working is. Fact: society doesn't function without people working. This fantasy where people should be able to work or not work depending on their whims is Marxist nonsense.


Society could easily function with a lot less people working. We are currently going through a pandemic forcing many people to stay home and not work. Society has not collapsed.

And all the experiments with UBI show no significant decrease in people working.

If you have a disability, or need time off work to deal with illness, or want to retire, or need to caregive, or need maternity leave etc there's already government benefits for every single one of these needs. If you want to expand them a bit, sure fine. Why is UBI needed, other than to create your Marxist goal where people don't have to work if they simply don't want to?

These programs all exist with conditions where you have to provide evidence to the government for all of these needs. The point of this is so people don't abuse the system and freeride. The only valid argument I've heard for UBI is that it would simplify the benefits process while reducing admin costs for all these other programs and UBI is often sold this way, but clearly many UBI proponents have other goals in mind which I don't agree with.

With UBI i'm sure people will do all sorts of useful things with it, but there will also be ie: lazy college students who sit on their butts in the summer and do nothing while collecting a check. We need programs with conditions to help those in need while preventing the freeriders. Unconditional free money for all who want it is illogical because there is limited funding (except in the minds of some utopian MMT'ers). Instead of giving 20k to a legit disabled person and 20k to a freerider, i'd rather give 40k to the disabled person and nothing to the freerider. It's a misallocation of funding.


Again, the benefits of UBI are:

Financial stability
Food security
Housing security
More access to education
Being able to leave abusive relationships
Better health outcomes
Removal of stress about whether or not your welfare benefits will be cut off
Poverty reduction
Less stress on other benefit programs

And I could go on, but I:think that provides a good set of reasons that have nothing to do with Marxism.
#15191923
Pants-of-dog wrote:Do you want evidence that women stay in dangerous relationships because of financial dependence?

Or evidence that UBI would negate this financial dependence?

If these people aren't able to have a full-time income i'm willing to help them or provide income.

With UBI, we would not need doctors or anyone else to decide all of that. People could decide for themsleves.


With UBI the disabled, sick, and those not able to find work get the same income as just someone who wants to chill and not work.

Society could easily function with a lot less people working. We are currently going through a pandemic forcing many people to stay home and not work. Society has not collapsed.


Supply chains have been seriously strained, prices for things like food and other essentials have increased and economies have been decimated, saved only by adding more to the debt than at any other time in history besides possibly WWII. It's not in any way sustainable.

If a lot less people work things will either cease to function or cost more money due to decreased supply. (price is determined by supply and demand)

And all the experiments with UBI show no significant decrease in people working.


Guess i'd have to look at all the data.

Again, the benefits of UBI are:

Financial stability
Food security
Housing security
More access to education
Being able to leave abusive relationships
Better health outcomes
Removal of stress about whether or not your welfare benefits will be cut off
Poverty reduction
Less stress on other benefit programs

And I could go on, but I:think that provides a good set of reasons that have nothing to do with Marxism.


What is wrong with a program that provides the same things but is conditional to avoid freeriding?
#15191924
@Unthinking Majority,
Sir, My proposed 2 programs do not lead to the dependence or freeloading you seem to mostly be worried about.

To get the wage in the MMT-JGP one needs to show up on time and do the work.
It isn't necessary that the job be economically self-supporting. The workers would otherwise be getting some gov. assistance anyway.
I don't think that you are aware that the current system in most Western nations before covid did not have a job for everyone who wanted or needed one. In the southern EU youth unemployment (=UE) was over 20% and all UE was over 10%. In the US UE was over 5%. All these numbers exclude those who had given up looking for a job, because they knew there were no jobs to be had. Including these people would add about 5 percentage points to those UE numbers. This is inefficient, and it destroys lives. You even agree that not working is bad for people. Why can't you agree that a system that forces 20% of young adults to be UE, is terrible for them?
. . . The main problem the MMT-JGP addresses is the lack of enough jobs for everyone to have one.

I suppose another solution would be to make a full time job be 27 hrs. in 3 x 9 hr. days. Now people could work 2 jobs in a 6 day week of 54 hrs. Just like when the 40 hr. week was began employers would be required to give almost all a raise. Now managers could work 54 hrs. a week for a salary.

I don't give a sh!t what the corps think of this. They hated the 40 hr. week too. They are infinitely selfish. They claim this is required of them. They take too big a slice of the total national income now. We need to reduce their slice of income by some means.
. . . The workers need more income to make the system stable. The corps can only suck up the additional income added to the economy by Gov. deficit spending and a trade surplus, minus a trade deficit. If corps suck up more than this everyone else is getting less and less each year, until they revolt. A revolt is inevitable otherwise. The corps can not keep making the workers poorer and poorer year after year forever. At some point something must give.
. . . We are already at a point where many people don't have a fulltime job and so can't get married and have a child or 2. Worse, many fulltime jobs don't pay enough to support a family. If women are making just enough to support themselves in poverty, then in a marriage the husband must make enough to support the children. And right now this is not possible for way too many. The US and the West in general has reached the crisis point IMHO.

The easiest, fastest way to solve the problem is with a UBI. The corps will hate it less than raising the min. wage to $20/hr. So, it should be easier to pass, and it takes effect immediately.

We still have the problem that a large UBI payment is going to cause inflation, at least for a while. IMHO, there is no doubt about this. Giving money to the rich does not cause inflation because the hoard it by saving it. They can't even invest it, because there is no money in the people's hands to buy more stuff. {All this was before covid.} OTOH, giving the people more money will increase effective demand, and this will cause inflation. It will also make investing seem like a better idea for the rich, because now there is more money in the economy to try to suck-up.
. . . And, taxing the money away from the people to pay for the UBI seems counter to the intended effect. Taxing the rich to pay for the UBI may not stop the inflation because the tax will just be sucking their savings away from them. That is, the rich will not reduce their spending unless the real tax rate is very close to 99%.

This last point is why I'm against a UBI that is enough to live on. But, a smaller UBI can solve the immediate problem that the workers don't earn enough to support a family with children.

MY UBI-SP is not intended to do anything except give some arm of the Gov. (here the Fed. Res.) a fiscal lever that it can move, along with interest rates, to regulate the economy when everyone has a good paying job and a small UBI-SP payment. The lever needs to be fiscal, because only fiscal things seem to have much effect.
. . . In Prof. Mitchell's blog (he's an MMTer) he has pointed out recently that ---
1] There is no correlation between interest rates and economic activity in decades of econ. history, even with any of several time delays.
2] That some MS econ. institutions (some central banks, incl. the ECB) are now admitting that fiscal payments did support the economy during lockdowns when interest rate changes could do nothing.
3] Some central banks (the Fed. & the RBA, etc.) are begging their Govs. to take more fiscal stimulus actions of some kind.
#15191979
Unthinking Majority wrote:If these people aren't able to have a full-time income i'm willing to help them or provide income.


Okay, so we see that this sort of financial freedom would help women leave toxic relationships. This would include both intimate relationships and workplace relationships.

Now, from a practical perspective, how does this work? Do women need to prove they are in an abusive relationship?

With UBI the disabled, sick, and those not able to find work get the same income as just someone who wants to chill and not work.


They will get the same basic starting income. People who need more should get more.

Supply chains have been seriously strained, prices for things like food and other essentials have increased and economies have been decimated, saved only by adding more to the debt than at any other time in history besides possibly WWII. It's not in any way sustainable.

If a lot less people work things will either cease to function or cost more money due to decreased supply. (price is determined by supply and demand)


Supply chains were strained because the workers that made everything were sick. Food and other essential goods skyrocketed because capitalism capitalised on the fact that we need to pay for deliveries, while simultaneously forcing their employees to risk their lives without danger pay.

Economies have been decimated. That seems hyperbolic. Here in Alberta, the price dropped out of the oil market, our single resource, so we were hit harder than most places in the developed world. We are getting by.

Guess i'd have to look at all the data.

What is wrong with a program that provides the same things but is conditional to avoid freeriding?


Because making it unconditional removes the precariousness from the situation, giving people financial stability as well as freedom.
#15192047
Unthinking Majority wrote:The plan should not be to simply provide people housing. The plan should be to get people to be able to provide for their own housing.

OK. So we can start by not forcing them to pay landowners full market value just for permission to provide for their own housing.
There's a huge difference between someone providing your means for you and doing it yourself. One is called dependence, the other is called independence.

What is it called when you have been forcibly made dependent on the privileged, and have to pay them full market value just for permission to support yourself independently, because they legally own your right to liberty?

Oh, wait a minute, that's right: capitalism.
These problems are fundamental to human existence.

Before land was appropriated as private property, there was no problem of having to pay landowners full market value just for permission to work, trade with others, or live.
Life is a never-ending series of problems you're required to solve in order to function, or to achieve anything.

But having to pay landowners for permission to exist is not a problem life handed people. It was created by law.
Are you seriously complaining about the burden of having to work in order to have the means of survival?

It is landowners and other greedy, privileged parasites who obtain the means of survival without the burden of having to work or contribute in any other way, and I will thank you to remember it.
There's been no time in human history where people didn't have to get up in the morning and go to work in order to have the things necessary for survival like food, clothes, housing.

Except landowners and other greedy, privileged parasites.
Every single animal organism has to do this.

Except the landowner, who simply tells others to give him what he wants.
It is the fundamental law of nature.

Which private ownership of land violates.
For the same reason, I am not cruel for wanting someone to fly on their own when they are able.

Sure, you want people to fly on their own -- as long as they can carry landowners on their backs.
What you want to do is have government take the place of mother bird and feed her dependents indefinitely because you feel sorry for people because life can have anxiety and barriers to overcome etc.

That is nothing but evil, blame-the-victim filth.
Overcoming these barriers and fears is the entire point of life, it builds resiliency and competence, and the only way we become independent adults capable of supporting ourselves and then a family of our own.

And landowners.
The results of your proposal is to make people weaker, like the adult child who never moves out of the house. This is cruelty disguised as compassion.

Like landowners, who needn't ever lift a productive finger?
The concept of a social safety net is to catch people as they are falling so you can get them back on their feet safely, it isn't to provide permanent dependence if self-sufficiency is possible. I'm not saying don't help people in need, i'm saying incentivize self-sufficiency.

Except for landowners, who are legally entitled to make others provide them with what they want.
There's a saying that workers in longterm care homes have: Never do anything for the client that they're able to do themselves.

There's a saying that landowners have: give a man a fish and you feed him for a day; teach a man to fish and you feed him for a lifetime; but if you can just own the lake, you can make him feed you for a lifetime.
#15192072
Truth To Power wrote:OK. So we can start by not forcing them to pay landowners full market value just for permission to provide for their own housing.

What is it called when you have been forcibly made dependent on the privileged, and have to pay them full market value just for permission to support yourself independently, because they legally own your right to liberty?

Oh, wait a minute, that's right: capitalism.

Before land was appropriated as private property, there was no problem of having to pay landowners full market value just for permission to work, trade with others, or live.

But having to pay landowners for permission to exist is not a problem life handed people. It was created by law.

It is landowners and other greedy, privileged parasites who obtain the means of survival without the burden of having to work or contribute in any other way, and I will thank you to remember it.

Except landowners and other greedy, privileged parasites.

Except the landowner, who simply tells others to give him what he wants.

Which private ownership of land violates.

Sure, you want people to fly on their own -- as long as they can carry landowners on their backs.

That is nothing but evil, blame-the-victim filth.

And landowners.

Like landowners, who needn't ever lift a productive finger?

Except for landowners, who are legally entitled to make others provide them with what they want.

There's a saying that landowners have: give a man a fish and you feed him for a day; teach a man to fish and you feed him for a lifetime; but if you can just own the lake, you can make him feed you for a lifetime.


WAAAAH I'M A VICTIM GIVE ME EVERYTHING FOR FREE WAAAAHHH.

I'm a landowner and so is everyone else on my street. Are we evil? I bought my land from another not-wealthy private individual. This was a transaction we both willfully engaged in. We aren't slaves.

Here's how life works: you work, and by working you make money. You use that money to rent or buy a home, food, clothes etc that other people own so that you can use them for yourself. This is called commerce.

Apparently you just want somebody to give you everything for free because you deserve it or something? If you want something somebody else has, you can both agree on a price and purchase it from them.

Homeless people aren't homeless because they are victims of big bad capitalists, most of them are homeless because they have mental illness and/or addictions and are thus incapable of holding a job, and thus incapable of buying or renting a home and spend much of their money to acquire drugs. There is free government money and programs readily available for these people (in most decent countries anyways), but you can't force medications down people's throats and you can't force somebody to quit a drug addiction.
#15192167
Unthinking Majority wrote:WAAAAH I'M A VICTIM GIVE ME EVERYTHING FOR FREE WAAAAHHH.

No, you simply made that up. You have no way to refute anything I actually said, so you have to just make $#!+ up and falsely imply that I said it when you are well aware that I did not.

Such behavior is disingenuous, despicable and disgraceful. And inevitable.
I'm a landowner

Shocker!
and so is everyone else on my street. Are we evil?

Is slavery evil? Has everyone who ever owned slaves therefore been evil, too? Or have they merely participated in evil that already existed? Lots of people, apparently including you and your neighbors, participate in evil without being themselves evil -- unless, of course, they start rationalizing and justifying that evil because they want to continue to profit unjustly by participating in it.
I bought my land from another not-wealthy private individual. This was a transaction we both willfully engaged in.

Like slave owners buying and selling slaves. Right. The problem is that just like slave owners, what you were buying and selling was other people's rights to liberty, which you just happened to legally own.
We aren't slaves.

Right, because you are the ones who own and buy and sell other people's rights to liberty.
Here's how life works:

No it isn't. You are just makin' $#!+ up again. Watch:
you work, and by working you make money.

Unless you own land titles or other privileges, in which case you don't have to work because others are legally obliged to pay you just for your permission to work, and do other things they would be perfectly at liberty to do if you had never existed.
You use that money to rent or buy a home, food, clothes etc that other people own so that you can use them for yourself. This is called commerce.

The same was true of slavery. But any "argument" that could be -- and was -- used to justify slavery is known in advance to be fallacious, disingenuous and evil, with no further argumentation needed.
Apparently you just want somebody to give you everything for free

No, you simply made that up. It bears no relation to anything I actually said. It is a bald fabrication. I'm not sure there is any clearer or simpler way to explain that to you.

The only thing I want for "free" is my rights, which by definition people do get without having to pay anyone for them.
because you deserve it or something?

Like everyone else, I deserve my rights, or just compensation for their abrogation, without having to pay a greedy, privileged parasite just for his permission to exercise them.
If you want something somebody else has, you can both agree on a price and purchase it from them.

When what they "have" is legal ownership of my right to liberty, then no, I don't think I'm interested in agreeing on a price to pay them for what is already rightfully mine, but which government forcibly stole from me without just compensation and gave to them as their private property.
Homeless people aren't homeless because they are victims of big bad capitalists,

Landowners, not capitalists. They most certainly are. What else stops them from providing themselves with shelter?
most of them are homeless because they have mental illness and/or addictions and are thus incapable of holding a job,

Why would they need a job to provide themselves with shelter using the resources nature provided for all?

Oh, wait a minute, that's right: because legally, they have to pay landowners full market value just for permission to provide themselves with shelter.
and thus incapable of buying or renting a home

GARBAGE. They are mostly perfectly capable of buying, renting, or building a perfectly serviceable home. What they can't afford to do is pay greedy, idle, privileged, parasitic landowners full market value just for permission to do so.
and spend much of their money to acquire drugs.

The fact that some of them want to use products that government prohibition has made orders of magnitude more expensive than their free market price is a separate issue.
There is free government money and programs readily available for these people (in most decent countries anyways), but you can't force medications down people's throats and you can't force somebody to quit a drug addiction.

But you can force them to either pay greedy, privileged parasites full market value just for permission to work and provide themselves with shelter, or do without.
#15192175
Pants-of-dog wrote:@Truth To Power

As far as I can tell, that post has nothing to do with UBI,

Yes, well, I realize you have said you are unable to understand clear, simple, grammatical English whenever I use it to identify facts that prove your beliefs are objectively false. And I know from experience that you like to affect a kind of Asperger's Syndrome inability to follow any but the most direct and explicit logical connections.

The post you are objecting to as OT was explaining to another member how the economic and societal conditions that make UBI a second-best solution to the problems of poverty, inequality, homelessness, unemployment, etc. -- which certainly require a solution -- are not the result of blind chance, free markets, natural law, or the personal failings of the poor, unemployed or homeless, but have been created deliberately by institutionalized privilege, especially private ownership of land.
#15192183
Pants-of-dog wrote:@Truth To Power

Are you saying there is a need for something like UBI because of the machinations of the capitalist class?

If by "the capitalist class" you mean the owners of privileges like land titles, bank licenses, IP monopolies, etc. rather than factories, and by "machinations" you mean their use of political power and legal institutions to strip everyone else of their rights to liberty and appropriate them as their own private property, then yes. UBI is a second-best solution to the resulting social and economic problems, but far superior to current safety net and income support programs.
#15192184
@Truth To Power

No, I mean capitalist class in the old sense, but since that is not relevant to my actual point, I am just going to suggest you stick to discussing UBI instead of whatever thing you propose instead, since it is irrelevant.
#15192193
Pants-of-dog wrote:@Truth To Power

No, I mean capitalist class in the old sense,

That's what I thought. So in that case, no, the factory owner's exercise of his only power -- to offer workers access to economic opportunity they would not otherwise have -- is not the cause of the poverty, unemployment, homelessness, etc. that make something like UBI necessary, because those problems are in fact caused by privilege holders' -- especially landowners' -- exercise of their only power: legally to deprive workers of access to economic opportunity they would otherwise have.
but since that is not relevant to my actual point, I am just going to suggest you stick to discussing UBI instead of whatever thing you propose instead, since it is irrelevant.

Huh? So, in what you are no doubt pleased to call your "mind," explanations of how sepsis germs spread in hospitals, and proposals for effective countermeasures thereto, are irrelevant to a thread whose OP claims surgeons washing their hands before operating is a scam?
#15192202
@Truth To Power

There seems to be nothing relevant in your post.

————————-

https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/manitoba ... -1.6160251

UBI could also do lot in terms of getting sex workers out of that life and into a healthier lifestyle . The mental health benefits from this would easily be worth the money.
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • 6
  • 8

Also, for all you 'the-USSR-was-hell' types out th[…]

Even our shoes are racist.

I think intent matters. I don't think the US mil[…]

"Whether we like it or not"

@Truth To Power Yes, you seem to finally under[…]

@Truth To Power , OH, you meant to tiny percent[…]