Past-Focused Policy

For discussions of culture, politics, economics, sociology, law, business and any other topic that falls under the social science remit.

Re: Past-Focused Policy

Postby Zero_Sum » Sat Dec 16, 2017 6:45 pm

Carleas wrote:
Zero_Sum wrote:Explain that to me since I've always heard that universal basic income would only go to those that need it mainly those with a consistent history of having little to no income whatsoever.

Why would a millionaire for instance collect a universal basic income?

I can think of two reasons, not equally persuasive:
1) Trying to target a universal income means making a big elaborate bureaucracy around it. It increases the overhead of running the program, and it increases the political pork barreling that can be done with it.
2) Making everyone get it changes how people think about it. When it's raised, it's raised for everyone. When it's lowered, it's lowered for everyone. I find this reason less important, but not nothing.

Zero_Sum wrote:So, in other words nothing really changes as some will still have more than others and with that rule over them.

It creates a floor of individual wealth. I think that's important, even if the floor is low. It meaningfully decreases the degree to which people are ruled over, because they have a minimum amount of autonomy, a minimum amount of power to exert. People can quit their job knowing they won't starve.

I also think it changes dynamics at the community level significantly. Think of opening a store in a poor community. At present, there's not enough money in some communities to justify that kind of investment. So no one in the neighborhood can open a store in their community, and the people in the community have a harder time getting work, and when they buy things they spend that money outside that community. Over time, there is a net money outflow from the poor community, and it's a vicious cycle because the more money flows out, the poorer it is, the less space for investment.

Introduce a basic income and things change. There's money flowing into the community. That money allows for people to invest in the community with an expectation that the community will have enough money to make it worth while. Now you have a virtuous cycle, where the whole community has a floor to their poverty. That gives every member of that community more opportunity, more choice, more freedom.

Zero_Sum wrote:Good luck with that, remember that they own all of the internet including the shut off button.

I own this site, and there are others like me. I do think a distributed mesh network would be better, but I don't think we're anywhere near the point where we need one.

Zero_Sum wrote:The rest of your post makes a bit of a mockery of me for surely you think of me as a naive simpleton as your tone towards me expresses such.

That's a bad habit of mine, and I offer a sincere mea culpa. I mean to critique your ideas (and I appreciate your critique of mine), but I don't mean to mock you.



I can think of two reasons, not equally persuasive:
1) Trying to target a universal income means making a big elaborate bureaucracy around it. It increases the overhead of running the program, and it increases the political pork barreling that can be done with it.
2) Making everyone get it changes how people think about it. When it's raised, it's raised for everyone. When it's lowered, it's lowered for everyone. I find this reason less important, but not nothing.

Well, then we're left with the inequality of those whose income solely depends on universal basic income and those who receive it but also have another income stemming from somewhere else. With that how has monetary social inequality changed at all?

It creates a floor of individual wealth. I think that's important, even if the floor is low. It meaningfully decreases the degree to which people are ruled over, because they have a minimum amount of autonomy, a minimum amount of power to exert. People can quit their job knowing they won't starve.


Yes, having some kind of income is better than not having any kind of income at all however I fail to see how the market won't price gauge individuals on universal basic income like they do when individual wages rise considerably. For instance people's wages rise and so individuals that control the markets raise the price on everything including both goods or services.

Also, I fail to see how being dependent on the state for everything is a form of autonomy.

I own this site, and there are others like me. I do think a distributed mesh network would be better, but I don't think we're anywhere near the point where we need one.


I'll believe it when I see one. ;)

That's a bad habit of mine, and I offer a sincere mea culpa. I mean to critique your ideas (and I appreciate your critique of mine), but I don't mean to mock you.


Perhaps I am becoming impatient because for me I keep hearing the same tiring inconsistent rebuttals that for me doesn't explain much of anything. I view myself as a rational racialist and you'll not meet many others like me that can explain everything in terms of point of views more clearly. I have problems just finding others like myself that embrace similar views.

If you want to have a concise and precise conversation on race, ethnicity, or culture I would really enjoy that. I only ask that you don't take me lightly and hear out everything I have to say responding to my points where I will do likewise. If we are to learn anything from conversations about this particular subject it requires considerable amounts of dialogue between even opposition or opposing sides. We always hear from the anti- racialist point of view but concerning my side of the argument on the direct opposite we don't get much consideration at all. Until that changes this particular subject will always install conflict, bickering, and contemptuous behaviors.
The temple mount will be rebuilt in Jerusalem and all the nations of the world will be ruled from there. All races, cultures, leaders, and nations will come to bow before the new messiah yet to come. All will come to know the chosen of God who refer themselves as Jews. For every Jew there will be a thousand goyim that will be their slaves as it was ordained by God. Every man, woman, and child will convert to Zionism.
User avatar
Zero_Sum
New World Order Enthusiast
 
Posts: 1838
Joined: Thu Nov 30, 2017 7:05 pm
Location: United States- Greater Israel

Previous

Return to Society, Government, and Economics



Who is online

Users browsing this forum: WendyDarling