No.98203[Last 50 Posts]
Is UBI (universal basic income) as bad as everyone makes it out to be?
Studies show it would grow the US economy by 2.5 trillion
It would do that in many ways. Corporations just keep lots of money sitting around. If that wealth could be taxed or distributed to people who weren't as rich like the working class. When the working class or the middle class get the money they would actually spend the money creating economic growth. They spend money in lots of sectors creating jobs, put more money into circulation, etc. UBI would also increase the overall happiness of the country.
So how would UBI be bad if it was distributed to the working and middle classes?
____________________________
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
No.98206
>>98203
>Is UBI (universal basic income) as bad as everyone makes it out to be?
Depends on the system it's in.
In the current system, unbacked currency is manufactured from nothing by the government, which then hands it out to whomever the legislators' best friends are. Literally.
In this system, UBI is an improvement.
With a backed currency, it is USUALLY not a good idea. The possible exception to this is in shares in a continuing creative process, such as the output of a joint farm, or as a taxation on extraction of a communally-held resource, such as Alaska's oil revenues. Just handing out n-percent of the treasury annually, on the other hand, is basically absolute and total dumbfuckery.
…but on the other end, as long as the government creates it from nothing and just gives it away, horizontal seeding > cronyism.
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
No.98207
>>98203
>Is UBI (universal basic income) as bad as everyone makes it out to be?
No, it's a lot worse. Any form of wealth redistribution, no matter the mechanism used, reduces the incentives to be productive and increases the incentive to not be productive. As the number of unproductive people increases and the financial burden they impose in turn increases, this destructive process increases in speed. The increased tax-collectors requires an increase in tax on the tax-payers, which creates a further disincentive on productivity, which necessitates another tax increase to pay for the increased burden, which causes…I think the image is clear.
https://mises.org/wire/universal-basic-income-costs-more-you-think
>Corporations just keep lots of money sitting around
>implying implicative implications
Conveniently, it's impossible to prove you wrong because you cast your net so damn wide you're bound to find an example in your favor. Most firms in the market don't just "keep lots of money sitting around," the retail and grocery markets especially run razor-thin margins; even the successful and wealthy ones have next to no liquid assets, and have all of their value tied up in capital assets of some sort.
>they would actually spend the money creating economic growth.
Where's the money coming from? You can't create growth through redistribution for the same reason cutting a foot of one end of a rug and sewing it to the other doesn't make the rug longer.
>UBI would also increase the overall happiness of the country.
A rather difficult to quantify metric and can easily be far removed from economic health.
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
No.98209
Lol…
>>98207
>You can't create growth through redistribution for the same reason cutting a foot of one end of a rug and sewing it to the other doesn't make the rug longer.
Bob makes rugs. Bob has no money.
You pay bob a dollar to make you a rug.
You rob bob. You get your dollar back.
You pay bob a dollar to make you a rug.
You rob bob. You get your dollar back.
You pay bob a dollar to make you a rug.
You rob bob. You get your dollar back.
You pay bob a dollar to make you a rug.
You rob bob. You get your dollar back.
You pay bob a dollar to make you a rug.
You rob bob. You get your dollar back.
The community has five new rugs. I'm not saying this is a great idea, but you still need to learn2bastiat.
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
No.98210
>>98209
Why does Bob continue to make the rugs when he knows he won't be compensated? Where is Bob getting his rug supplies if he has no money?
>you still need to learn2bastiat.
You first.
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
No.98212
>>98210
>Why does Bob continue to make the rugs when he knows he won't be compensated?
<You pay bob a dollar to make you a rug.
Reading is hard. Also, anyone who has ever heard of broken windows in economics IS A GOVERNMENT LOL.
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
No.98213
>>98207
The article dismisses negative income tax. I thought it would've been a better vesion of UBI.
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
No.98215
>>98203
I'm quite partial to this topic since it's not a baby-killing evil the likes of Socialism or Authoritarian governments. UBI isn't necessarily bad (or at least, "partial" universal basic income isn't). At least not in practice/on paper on a small scale. In economically decrepit regions of Germany and areas of Africa where it's been tried, it helped recover the economy by making workers more productive and giving people an incentive to take risks/find better (or make better) jobs, etc. So clearly it has the potential to work short-term if nothing else. The issue is that UBI is more like pouring salt water onto a wound. It will help if you're dealing with a cut or scrape, but if the wound is too big you're just increasing the pain in an already bad situation and you'll bleed faster than the salt can sterilize/seal things. Ideally to apply UBI, you want organizations like the LDS church or fraternal societies that use UBI-like systems to help the truly needy, not a monolithic government. The Mormon church runs off the idea that everyone has access to the food stores or emergency cash, but you should sacrifice your own share/donate time/items to the church if you're not in need (and that those in need should get back on their feet as quickly as possible), just as an example since it's one I'm familiar with growing up. When you have a government running UBI, it becomes a scam really quickly because:
1) The government is taxing you to produce this money.
2) You're hoping the government can both tax everyone at a certain rate and also distribute that money without it turning into Social Security or half of it being taken to pay for the people mailing everyone a check.
3) It's being applied on a large-scale indefinitely.
4) You could have rogue actors who leech off the system of UBI without plans to ever pay into it and no means of retaliating against this behavior without falling further into authoritarianism/totalitarianism.
5) The government might not adapt to inflation in regards to UBI.
6) The government can't "fail" from poor implementation of UBI- they will just tax more if the program isn't working or provide a sub-par service that can't be fought.
7) The program won't adjust based on region and average income level if it's federally funded.
8) Logistically for it to work requires a huge amount of funding.
With these factors and others to consider, the entire premise is built on a lot of "what ifs" when applied on a larger scale. The cases I spoke about in Germany and Africa have only implemented it for a handful of towns and for only a few years (I think the longest-running project isn't even a decade old). Who knows how people will react to the same system a few generations later. In Sweden there was an extensive welfare system that was hardly used, but from what I understand more than 50% of Swedes under age 30 believe it's ok to abuse it now. America relied on social stigma, but has a similar thought process now. Can a UBI system really keep itself separate from a welfare system? I propose they can't. However, I will propose a method of implementing UBI that might work. I say might because I still think it's a very silly system for large-scale implementation and that charities provide a far superior deal at a far smaller price point, but that aside, here's a way it might work for at least one generation before falling apart. It must have a system whereas…
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
No.98216
>>98215
>It is completely automated
Right down to signing and mailing the checks, the system must be entirely automated (or at least have the potential to be). Any bureaucrats involved in it would turn it into a scam very quickly.
>The money must sit in a savings-like account that the government cannot access for any reason
The government must not be allowed to reallocate the funds under any circumstance or it will just become Social Security 2.0 where it's used to fund other things while bankrupting the next generation.
>It must be based on sales tax or some other non-income basis
It must not be something directly taken out of someone's wallet or it will fail when the government decides to increase it. The taxation must be tangible and noticeable by those taxed.
>It must not try to be an actual UBI, it must be a partial UBI
In order for it to work, it must never be based on some metric of human dignity. It must be a flat calculation of "X money raised, Y money distributed"
>It must eliminate other welfare programs
The only way a UBI can be successful without bankrupting the USA for instance, is if it replaces virtually all forms of welfare from the system. Landlords will probably build houses to house NEETs on their UBI-Bux and other measures will replace the welfare state, but this is a requirement if you want any sort of large-scale implementation of a UBI.
>It must have lucrative and beneficial ways of opting out of receiving funds or donating into the system to encourage its use for those who need it
This could be as simple as tax credits that exceed what one would normally receive from UBI, or perhaps a system of "for every dollar donated into the UBI fund, you will receive 2 dollars in tax writeoffs." For those who would benefit the most from UBI, this won't matter since they're probably in the lowest tax brackets or already receive the maximum amount of writeoffs, but for the rich and well-off, there will be more incentive to not use UBI.
>It must not be opt-outable
If you can opt out of the UBI system, then it will crash and fail before its conception, but then again, what government program CAN you opt out of these days?
>It must incentivize good behavior
If someone buys something really pricey that will add lots of bucks to the UBI system or gets a job that pays more money, it should provide some sort of benefit. Again, the goal is to encourage people to not rely on UBI and to reach a point where their UBI income gains are marginal at best.
>It must be a flat check
It must be a flat check, preferably once a year, that isn't in the form of goods or services. It must be cold hard cash (even if digital cash).
There's a bunch of other little details, but it's midnight and I'm tired and this is a hypothetical of a hypothetical that will never happen since the gubmint would just fuck it up if it tried to enforce UBI.
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
No.98217
>>98206
This anon gets it and explained it much more succinctly. UBI must not used a backed currency and it must provide some incentive to not become a free rider.
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
No.98218
>>98209
Except Bob either spends the money faster than he's robbed and still gets taxed at the same rate leading him into debt, you're forced to rob Bob for less/pay him less (or take a profit loss that must be made up somewhere) or Bob just quits as mentioned by >>98210
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
No.98219
a long time ago I calculated how much money goes into social security and how much I get out of it
the numbers have probably changed, but if they fired everyone involved and spent paying their paychecks, they could have extended the recipient list to every single citizen to get the same amount as I did (which was 400 ish dollars)
so UBI would be possible without a tax increase just by cutting other "free income" programs and combining them together
should free income programs exist at all? probably not
would UBI be a more efficient and fair way to go about them? I think so
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
No.98220
>>98219
Yes, if you eliminated almost all welfare, you could have a partial UBI. Tangibly it would provide far less worth to those in need since the average welfare recipient can receive between $20,000 and $40,000 in benefits based on various factors. In terms of long-term output, it would be verifiably better than the welfare system in just cutting everyone a flat check. You could even only distribute it to the lowest quintile of individuals to make it slightly better at the risk of forming the welfare cliff as it currently exists. I don't think anyone can intellectually and honestly say a UBI is worse than the welfare state (at least short-term before entitlement complexes kick in), it's just a question of if a UBI is good at all to which the answer is an admittedly hesitant "probably not."
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
No.98223
UBI in the modern context was first proposed by Libertarians and then Coopted by SocialDemocrats and liberals as a tool of pacification of the working class and to justify the privatisation of services previously provided by the state (Education / healthcare etc)
This obviously ignores that eventually even the UBI would be weaned off in the name of Austerity and Capitalism
<TLDR
Putting period pads on a gaping wound
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
No.98224
>>98207
I read the article, and noticed that the author made one fatal flaw in their logic- they assume a shortage or stagnation in labor. If you assume this, then yes, UBI looks like a baby-killing machine. If, however, you assume that there is in fact the opposite, a labor surplus with too many workers in the workforce, than his argument largely falls apart. It's based on worker productivity, but ignores the market is flooded. By reducing this spillage of workers in the form of UBI, you're empowering them to take on jobs based on other qualifications than just "I need to make money" and thus would increase the average worker productivity. The author acts as if all workers should be working 100 hour work weeks when in reality if not for labor laws and other issues creating the current overabundance of unskilled labor, we should already be at the 20 hour work week as the standard work week.
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
No.98225
Also if I recall correctly, most major companies suffer from the square root problem. That is, the square root of your total employees make up 50% of your profits. Of those left over, the next square root makes up 25% of your profits, etc. down the line. The vast majority of workers, much like ants in a tunnel, are useless/lazy or under-performing anyways. Best to give them a reason to fuck off to create the opportunity for further labor growth.
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
No.98228
>>98203
saving is better for economy than spending you dumb ass nigger
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
No.98235
>>98216
>>It must be based on sales tax or some other non-income basis
>It must not be something directly taken out of someone's wallet or it will fail when the government decides to increase it. The taxation must be tangible and noticeable by those taxed.
Why can't you tax the rich further and take it from the money they have lying around.
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
No.98236
>>98228
How is saving better? Isn't it better to spend for economic growth
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
No.98250
>>98212
Then let me spell it out for you, doublenigger: If Bob knows the dollar will be stolen as soon as he receives it he's not going to bother trying to earn it.
>broken window economics
Nevermind, you're a retard or troll who can't into opportunity cost and fetishizes the seen over the unseen. The fact that you mentioned Bastiat suggests the latter.
>>98224
>they assume a shortage or stagnation in labor.
Where do you see that? The author makes no assumptions about the state of the labor market, he makes several unqualified statements about the incentives created by UBI. Those incentives remain the same regardless of how many people are or aren't employed. And even if there is a "surplus" in the labor market, UBI would only worsen it by decreasing the incentive to be productive.
>a labor surplus with too many workers in the workforce
There's no such thing. If there really was an overabundance of labor it would be solved by firms taking advantage of the lower price and switching to production that is more labor-intensive than capital intensive; labor is an unexploited resource for the entrepreneur in the vein of gold or oil, not a liability, and it's in their own interest to make the most out of labor. If there is any unexploited labor in the market it's because of state regulations preventing entrepreneurs and workers from coming together, whether that be minimum wage laws, compulsory union formation, or some other state intrusion. If you want to solve any kind of "overabundance" you remove those barriers instead of adding yet another one in.
>By reducing this spillage of workers in the form of UBI, you're empowering them to take on jobs based on other qualifications than just "I need to make money" and thus would increase the average worker productivity.
How? You can't increase worker productivity if people don't get employed. And if we assume for the sake of argument that there really is an "overabundance" of labor in the market, then there isn't a market demand for their labor. UBI or no UBI the market demand will still be just as small as it was before; if anything, you've only decreased the demand for labor further, because: A) thanks to the tax, businessowners now have a smaller cash flow and are less able to hire new workers, B) thanks to the tax, consumers have less money to spend and buy less of the businessowners' goods, meaning the business owners have no incentive to expand their production base and might even reduce it (by firing people), and C) thanks to UBI, the opportunity cost for getting a job is now higher. You can't pull money out of thin air, and any marginal increase in productivity you might see from UBI is more than compensated for by the loss in every other part of the economy.
>The author acts as if all workers should be working 100 hour work weeks when in reality if not for labor laws and other issues creating the current overabundance of unskilled labor, we should already be at the 20 hour work week as the standard work week.
Then the solution is to repeal those labor laws causing the problem, not create a second problem by destroying the incentive to be productive.
>>98225
The market creates the opportunity for further labor growth on its own. If workers are being useless or lazy, that's an incentive to lay them off. If the company for which they work doesn't know or care that they are underperforming, then there's an incentive for a smaller, more efficient company to overtake the inefficient larger one.
>>98235
The rich don't just have "money lying around," they aren't just mindlessly hoarding wealth for the sake of being evil. Even if they did, they won't have "money lying around" after you confiscate it all, and once you confiscate it they won't earn any more–why would they bother if they know you're just going to steal it anyways? Any kind of "eat the rich" rhetoric will just destroy the host off of which the parasite feeds.
>>98236
You need to stop listening to Keynes. Saving isn't just better for economic growth, it's a pre-requisite–in order for growth to happen, you need investment to happen. Investment cannot happen without liquid capital being made available to entrepreneurs, i.e. savings. https://mises.org/wire/saving-—-not-spending-—-engine-economic-growth
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
No.98256
UBI is inherently redistributionist and inflationary. Due to inflationary effects any implementation of UBI is necessarily going to create net losses for some people. It's no different from any other form of welfare.
>>98236
You need to save money for investment in capital/research. The ideas behind modern central banking and the concept that there is a "healthy" rate of inflation are completely ass backwards.
>>98224
If the state wanted to make it easier for workers to save for a rainy day, all they would need to do is stop silently siphoning everyone's wealth via taxation and printing moar money. Thanks to Keynesianism we have a financial system that is literally built to disproportionately incentivize spending and de-incentivize saving.
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
No.98260
>>98250
>They'd swap to a labour intensive model
Two words: Minimum Wage
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
No.98262
>>98260
In that same post, in the very next sentence:
>If there is any unexploited labor in the market it's because of state regulations preventing entrepreneurs and workers from coming together, whether that be minimum wage laws, compulsory union formation, or some other state intrusion.
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
No.98266
>>98250
Okay. Prove that 100% of people who had their car stereo robbed once immediately quit their job, all interaction with the job market, and all other economic activity for the rest of their life.
I'll wait.
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
No.98269
>>98266
Nice strawman, leftyfag
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
No.98278
>>98262
You don't believe people consider UBI as a theoretical solution, right? It was proposed by libertarians in the first place as an interim period to get rid of welfare/as a better alternative to welfare. If we're discussing in theory alone, then yeah, UBI is a shit.
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
No.98280
<eugenics is wrong!
<basic income/welfare is right moral!
<violence is never the solution!
<tolerance is good!
<t. subhuman
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
No.98285
>>98266
What a phenomenally useless post. A slightly more coherent version of your metaphor would be: if people know their car stereo is going to be stolen at the end of every month, after a certain point they're going to stop buying new car stereos.
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
No.98290
>>98269
The strawman was when confedman decided to make up a "sign your name to petty burglary for no fucking reason" line.
I do apologize for assuming confedpersun's gender, yes. Also, very very few people consider Bastiat "leftist;" this is HIS argument, though neither of our advocacy.
>>98285
>if people know their car stereo is going to be stolen at the end of every month, after a certain point they're going to stop buying new car stereos.
This… is a bit different than cessating buying…. dollars… is it not?
Bluntly, your bare assertion that he will cease ALL economic activity and just starve to death is… not very likely. It's the end stage of despondency and leads to the person's death. You may have to slip them a few extra dollars so they don't die from this neato racketeering scheme you've got going on, but your assertion that he's going to immediately just sit and wait to die without buying or selling, or eating, since that costs money, are… ludicrous. You are spewing absolute bullshit, frankly.
Meanwhile, like Bastiat said - dollars are meaningless, and five more rugs is an increase in wealth.
Further killing your emotional whining is the fact that this system is already in place. There's a fuckton of rent-seeking behavior which produces zero rugs, zero windows, and zero anything else; land rent is one of these. As such, the economic system described is also what has been occurring for the last several hundred years at least, and so far, apparently literally no one has chosen to just slowly wait to die of hunger and thirst as you assert.
So, no.
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
No.98293
>>98290
>Bluntly, your bare assertion that he will cease ALL economic activity and just starve to death is… not very likely.
Point to where I said "cease all economic activity" or "starve to death."
>is the fact that this system is already in place. There's a fuckton of rent-seeking behavior which produces zero rugs, zero windows, and zero anything else; land rent is one of these. As such, the economic system described is also what has been occurring for the last several hundred years at least
And for several hundred years at least economic systems have repeatedly collapsed as the state spent other people's money, and subsequently ran out of other people's money.
Unrelated to your inability to argue: Your post is so full of…ellipsis and extraneous adverbs that, forthrightly, it is…impossible to read your post without it, truly, grating on the reader, to be honest.
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
No.98295
>>98278
>It was proposed by libertarians in the first place as an interim period to get rid of welfare/as a better alternative to welfare
What an absolutely abhorrent and uneducated post. Is this a /leftypol/ meme they're trying to spread or something? Who could have come up with such utterly retarded claim and assert it to libertarians, of all people.
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
No.98297
>>98278
>It was proposed by libertarians in the first place as an interim period to get rid of welfare/as a better alternative to welfare
No, big-brained centrists who think they've found a "third alternative" and the occasional mainstream politician are the ones who shill for it. Libertarians have done nothing but point out the myriad flaws in UBI retardation, same as they do for any other welfare scheme. Rothbard himself did nothing but stress the inadequacies of a basic income in For a New Liberty, Man, Economy and State, and various other works.
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
No.98298
>>98297
Wasn't it Rothbard or Friedman that introduced the concept of the negative income tax as a version of UBI. Not trying to dismiss your claims I just want to learn more.
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
No.98302
>>98298
I believe Friedman was one of the first to propose it, yes. But, while Friedman is mostly a free-market economist, and while he is an advocate for small-'l' liberty, ideologically speaking he isn't a libertarian–he doesn't share much intellectual ancestry with Mises, Rothbard, or Hayek. He reaches similar conclusions to them, but from a very different direction, coming from the Chicago school of economic thought, which emphasizes empirical data and quantitative explanation. The Austrians in contrast use a priori reasoning to reach their conclusions.
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
No.98304
>>98293
>Point to where I said "cease all economic activity
>>98250
It's even sentence one. Might not have been you, it IS the direct chain AND THE FUCKING TOPIC OF THAT SUBTHREAD, so quit posting in shit you don't read.
In case you're retarded : what KIND of dollar they are trading for is completely fucking irrelevant, honestly. As such - yup, "you" claimed they would cease all economic activity.
> it is…impossible to read
Nor…mally, I would say "that's your problem right there," possibly coupling this with the retardation which gives rise to those five words.
In this case, "you" typed that shit. So I'm presuming the retardation only goes into the processes which make you think dishonesty is a functional form of bet.
>And for several hundred years at least economic systems have repeatedly collapsed
Well! Congrats on accidentally, but successfully positing that ancap land enclosure is in fact absolute economic phail.
You'll probably have a bitch-fit that you said that while you're instead trying to spam "passable" reply, but amusingly, rent versus production IS actually economics 101 - and the entire topic of Bastiat's broken windows, which is the argument that commented on your otherwise-fascinating npcredistributionspam.txt synthesis.
Have a nice day!
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
No.98402
>>98304
>It's even sentence one.
Nope:
"Then let me spell it out for you, doublenigger: If Bob knows the dollar will be stolen as soon as he receives it he's not going to bother trying to earn it."
Nowhere does this imply all economic activity - just activities involving that one transactor (you).
>Congrats on accidentally, but successfully positing that ancap land enclosure is in fact absolute economic phail.
Where is land enclsoure even mentioned in this thread?
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
No.98408
>>98402
Appreciate the white-knighting, fam, but don't give the sperg (you)s. The fewer responses he gets the faster he'll get bored.
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
No.98428
>>98402
>munee is magic and bonds permanently to a person, except that the original payee and only them can rob them - no one else! It's physically impossible!
Do you have a source for these bold physics claims you're making?
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
No.98430
There is something much better than UBI: not having taxes and stupid regulations. If it wasn't for taxes and regulations, even if you were really poor you would still be able to buy a lot of cool stuff, including homes and cars.
Instead the system of taxes, incentives, regulations, etc makes everything expensive as fuck, limits the supply of goods and make the lives of the poor from cool to miserable.
Being poor is always relative to other people. If I find myself in a room with Bill Gates, Bezos and Zuckerberg I am the poor. Yet, I can't complain too much after all.
Under full-force capitalism you can be poor as fuck and still have a shitload of material needs satisfied. Sadly, we live in a world where people can't see this or are just evil and are more interested in position than material well-being. Hence, we get the current shitty system where the poor are forced to be miserable, need to be helped with welfare, and so on.
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
No.98443
>>98428
>munee is magic and bonds permanently to a person, except that the original payee and only them can rob them - no one else! It's physically impossible!
Where did I mention or imply this? If there are other actors that rob or intend to rob, Bob can avoid transactions with them too.
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
No.98448
>>98443
> If there are other actors that rob or intend to rob, Bob can avoid transactions with them too.
<the original payee and only them can rob them - no one else!
>Where did I mention or imply this?
lol.
In most people's real world, whom one recieves money from that does not affect robbery at all. Then there's you, with magic munee.
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
No.98481
IF EVERY SHOP KEEPER KNOWS HIS CUSTOMERS HAVE AN X AMOUNT OF MONEY GUARANTEED BY GOVERNMENT, HE WILL SIMPLY RAISE HIS PRICES BY X AMOUNT OF DOLLARS
UBI IS JUST A MORE HONEST VERSION OF MINIMUM WAGE, WHICH HAS BEEN DEPRESSING ECONOMIES WHEREVER IT IS INTRODUCED.
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
No.98494
>>98448
<the original payee and only them can rob them - no one else!
As I mentioned above, Bob can avoid transactions with them as well. This provides incentive for people not to steal due to lost opportunity for future transactions.
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
No.98520
>>98494
>not only is money magic so that it can only be stolen by the person who paid it, but also, everyone who has ever stolen anything in history leaves a signed confession with their name and address.
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
No.98524
>>98520
>everyone who has ever stolen anything in history leaves a signed confession with their name and address.
You do not need a signed confession to identify a thief.
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
No.98525
>>98520
>so that it can only be stolen by the person who paid it
Why do you keep repeating this? Nowhere in any of my posts did I I suggest this.
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
No.98543
>>98430
UBI is basically what we have now, I don't understand how it changes anything.
UBI gives a certain amount of money to everyone, and counter-acts it as income increases with more tax. So in effect only the bottom 5% actually enjoy UBI in its fullest sense.
The current system has the same thing, it has tax deductions, credits and welfare which provide the bottom 5% about 10-15k a year while taxing the middle and upper class for that benefit.
I don't get why people who consider themselves "well read" in the topic of economy can't do basic math and realize its the same thing.
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
No.98548
>>98543
>I don't get why people who consider themselves "well read" in the topic of economy can't do basic math and realize its the same thing.
People who are "well-read" often think basic math is for stupid hicks and parochials, and use advanced math and mental gymnastics to prove to themselves you can ignore basic math.
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
No.98576
>>98525
>Nowhere in any of my posts did I I suggest this.
>also, if you get robbed, refusing to do business with anyone who has ever paid you will magically prevent all future robbery.
I see ancap has been pretty successful at eroding lead contamination standards in childrens' formula.
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
No.98578
>>98203
UBI opens the floodgates to honest, outspoken and state-funded neet parasitism.
No single policy could be more damaging to the moral fibre of the people than assuring them that they are not responsible for their own well-being.
Welfare explicitly (and inefficiently) sets out to assist the unlucky; You got cancer? The state will pay for your treatment. Lost your job? Have unemployment benefits, etc. The welfare system is designed with the implicit assumption that bad things happen to good people and the state should redistribute money because it is moral to help the unfortunate.
UBI is the political admission that redistribution itself is the goal. If UBI is implemented, which I can very well see happening in the next 20 years, the US will become a nation of chronic neets within the decade and implode before the end of the century.
You need only look at the grain dole in the early Roman empire to see its effects; the solidification of the urban poor as a permanent underclass. Their mobilization in support of an increasingly tyrannical state. The death of the last remnants of the republic as the people came to depend on their patrons and the state for what little they had. The emergence of proto-feudalism. The collapse of Roman society itself.
This is already happening in the west with welfare. UBI would only speed it up, but it's scarcely a step in the right direction.
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
No.98591
>>98576
>refusing to do business with thieves will prevent future robbery.
FTFY
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
No.98634
>>98591
Not only completely false, but you're also relying on some hella psychic powers.
The object permanence and concept of self which child psychology attributes to an under-six-month-old doesn't actually real. Assuming you're, like, at least twelve, making these arguments also establishes for you a literal single-digit IQ - an IQ of "4" at its most optimistic.
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
No.98638
>>98634
>Not only completely false
proof?
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
No.98640
>>98638
I mean, the fact that folks who live on a job wage have experienced theft, most likely from persons not their employer, exist out there would suffice.
Or, underaged beer runs.
Or, you know, reality. Which you seem to have great problems with.
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
No.98641
>>98578
>No single policy could be more damaging to the moral fibre of the people than assuring them that they are not responsible for their own well-being.
It's actually the opposite. The point of UBI replacing welfare is that you assure an individual is responsible for their own well-being. Instead of providing them programs, you say "here is money, use it wisely" and tell them to fuck off. The benefits of UBI over the welfare system are mostly social/cultural, which is why these socially-stunted autists in this thread don't recognize the main benefits of UBI which is economic responsibility for oneself
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
No.98642
In addition, the US is already full of Chronic NEETs. Roughly 60% of the population relies on welfare or government employment to get by.
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
No.98643
>>98641
>here is free money
>economic responsibility for oneself
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
No.98652
>>98643
>Here is free services
>Niggers trade services for drugs
>Society: "It's not they're fault they're in a bad situation!"
>Somehow more economical than just handing someone in need lump sum of cash and telling them to figure it out
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
No.98653
>>98207
>Where's the money coming from? You can't create growth through redistribution for the same reason cutting a foot of one end of a rug and sewing it to the other doesn't make the rug longer
Bad analogy. The companies have money sitting around and putting into circulation via distribution creates growth.
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
No.98655
>>98578
The actual issue with UBI is the economics of it not the frankly outlandish, instantaneous entrapment of everyone you've illustrated here. It would be superior to simplify the welfare state. It would be best if there were none, but it would indeed be a step in the right direction to straighten out the "spaghetti code" of law, generally and specifically.
"Lifelong Democrats" are already honest and outspoken in their voting for more "funding for dem programs". They could hardly be more outspoken or honest. The word "Welfare" may imply "helping the unlucky" but it certainly doesn't explicitly do anything like that. It explicitly applies stolen goods for purposes laid out by the organizations created to utilize stolen goods. I'm not sure why a cynical fearmonger like yourself would temporarily become so naive as to think "welfare programs" are anything other than Orwellian newspeak-tier.
Speaking of fearmongering, it wasn't welfare which brought down Rome. It was taxation fiasco (intolerable taxes + population flight to avoid said taxes), eternal war, political shenanigans (such as corruption) and threats from without. Bread and circuses didn't crumble that ancient institution, they just made it more tolerable for the unfortunate people still living in the belly of the decaying beast.
>>98634
>hella psychic powers
>you're, like, at least twelve
>a literal single-digit IQ
You include these gems in your post and then have the audacity to say other people are stupid. That's completely remarkable.
>>98643
>anything not suffered for will be misused
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
No.98660
>>98655
>cynical fearmonger
Im sure you can do better than calling me names.
>it would indeed be a step in the right direction to straighten out the "spaghetti code" of law, generally and specifically
The complexity of the law in general is a feature, not a bug, which comes about due to the natural tendency of every bureaucracy to expand.
In order to reduce it in any meaningful way the ability of the state to tax and borrow unlimited amounts of money needs to be severely constrained (feudal societies achieved this quite well in some regards). Anything else might be useful in temporarily reducing human misery, but will also result in the system lumbering on for longer and causing more damage in the long term.
>so naive as to think "welfare programs" are anything other than Orwellian newspeak-tier.
I know what welfare is.
It doesn't matter what I think. What matters is that, by advocating for schemes like this, you're helping socialists create a narrative that will sway the liberal centre towards the acceptance of raw redistributionism. You're helping them make values like personal responsability seem quaint and old-fashioned. You're doing the left's job for them.
Just check out leftist shitholes in reddit and the like. See what they think about UBI. See the narrative they're crafting and you're helping spread.
>it wasn't welfare which brought down Rome. It was taxation fiasco (intolerable taxes + population flight to avoid said taxes), eternal war, political shenanigans (such as corruption) and threats from without. Bread and circuses didn't crumble that ancient institution, they just made it more tolerable for the unfortunate people still living in the belly of the decaying beast.
No. You're mistaking the late imperial period for the late republican/early principate period.
The citizen soldier-farmer had been the basis of Roman society for most of its early history. During the late republic, the senatorial class in Rome used their political and economic power to gut the rights of these small, independent farmers and enrich themselves, and in the process created a new class of urban poor who were kept from revolting via the distribution of a grain dole. These chronically unemployed wretches subsisted in no small part by selling their political support to wealthy patrons who then used them to advance socially and politically.
One man could, in this climate, upon becoming the patron of a sufficient number of people and gaining command of the armies and consequently the grain shipments to Rome, overturn the senate and install themselves as absolute ruler of Rome, which is exactly what Caesar Augustus did.
The grain dole may not have been the only factor that led to the collapse of the Republic, but it was one of the most important ones.
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
No.98663
>>98640
So no proof?
>the fact that folks who live on a job wage have experienced theft, most likely from persons not their employer
Just because theft exists does not mean they are not able to deter theft. Stores blacklist shoplifters and communicate said lists among their competitors. They would not do this if their was a financial incentive.
> Which you seem to have great problems with.
Poisoning the well won't support your case.
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
No.98667
>>98663
>multiple examples which contradict an absolute claim.
<so, no proof?
Anon98663 decided to cash out their bank account. Since this was under five bucks, they then proceeded to borrow thousands and thousands of dollars. They chose to invest it in clothing, dropping a few thousand on a tailored suit. They bought a nice gold rolex, and some thick 18k gold bracelets. They kept the rest in cash, in large bills, in their pocket.
Anon98663 was walking through the back alleys in the bad part of town, a few thousand in hundred dollar bills in a wad s/he was waving and flashing in xer hand, when a figure stepped out of the shadows. Said figure explained that they really, really wanted Anon98663's cash and jewelery.
Anon98663 drew them up straight, and beaming with pride, shouted "I've never sold you anything, so it's impossible for you to rob me!" What do you think happened to Anon98663?
>>98655
>You include these gems in your post and then have the audacity to say other people are stupid.
Yeah, 'theory of mind' is actually well documented as occuring usually before one year of age. It's also something this retard - literal, not name-callling - is flunking, assuming that since the person who WROTE the story and the person who READ the story know something, that everyone IN the story does so also.
They're also CONTINUING this utter failure of theory-of-mind. So, go ahead, divide 0.5 (about six months) by any made-up number for age likely to be posting here and multiply by a hundred.
Those were literal claims, not slurs. And if you could read, you would have known that.
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
No.98675
>>98667
>Anon98663 drew them up straight, and beaming with pride, shouted "I've never sold you anything, so it's impossible for you to rob me!" What do you think happened to Anon98663?
Applying the Bob-you scenario: “If Bob knows the dollar will be stolen as soon as he receives it he's not going to bother trying to earn it." This phrase can be reconstructed in this scenario as: “If Anon98663 knows that the cash and jewelry will be stolen by going into back alleys, why does Anon98663 continue to go into back alleys donned in such bling?”
This also fails to disprove:
>refusing to do business with thieves will prevent future robbery.
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
No.98686
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
No.98689
>>98675
> “If Bob knows the dollar will be stolen as soon as he receives it he's not going to bother trying to earn it."
Okay. This leaves us back at Bob ceasing all economic activity and voluntarily starving to death,
>This also fails to disprove:
>refusing to do business with thieves will prevent future robbery.
Only because anonwhatthefuckevernumber hasn't tested the "I've never sold anything to you!" magic spell blinged out and flashing large sums in a back alley in the bad part of town.
My hypotheosis is that it won't help them. Meanwhile, Bob's psychic powers which make all investigative services obsolete are completely unsourced and unestablished, leaving them unable at this time to know whom not to do business with even if the magic spell hypotheosis works.
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
No.98701
>>98689
>This leaves us back at Bob ceasing all economic activity and voluntarily starving to death,
No, it doesn't. It leaves us to Bob leaving, evading and stealing, you fucking humongous nigger retard.
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
No.98705
>>98701
I suppose bob might try stealing.
Got any evidence that robbery is contagious?
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
No.98708
>>98705
>Got any evidence that robbery is contagious?
Are you retarded?
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
No.98786
I for one support UBI.
As a holder in gold and silver, my earnings would grow exponentially as people gradually, or perhaps suddenly, lost faith in the dollar.
I wouldn't be a fan of the global economic collapse, but then I could take my earnings from gold and silver and put them straight into real estate and retire young, so, yeah I guess let's push for UBI as soon as possible.
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
No.98789
>>98786
That sounds cool, got anymore advice/books/guides on profiting from the economic collapse?
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
No.98816
>>98689
>This leaves us back at Bob ceasing all economic activity and voluntarily starving to death,
No, because Bob can transact with non-thieves.
>Only because anonwhatthefuckevernumber hasn't tested the "I've never sold anything to you!" magic spell blinged out and flashing large sums in a back alley in the bad part of town.
Why is anon in that back alley that is well known for muggings? It is not like anon can do business in the market where transactions are more transparent. If he is willing to venture there, he could insure his swag, hire protection, arm himself, etc.
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
No.98817
>>98786
You're the same as niggers who support the AWB because it means their investments (machine guns) are more valuable. Please die.
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
No.98849
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
No.98853
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.