An update on Universal Basic Income (UBI)

I’m unaware of any domestic genocides (not including the odd attack from one of our “enemies”) in the developed world since the end of the second world war - I know they certainly still happen behind closed doors in foreign countries, but nowadays the west is in horror whenever just a few of its own people die, often when just one person is killed. Genocide doesn’t happen to us lot anymore. I’m not saying it couldn’t happen, or be arranged to happen, but there’s just no way it would get far off the ground with all the communication and information open to us about our own countries. As for vaccines, nobody is getting killed by them, be real. They might not all be free of side-effects, but the good they do far outweighs any bad. Trusting doctors is smart, but mania and paranoia about them is able to completely undo all the good they could do in cases like vaccinations - please don’t buy into that. Doctors are normal people but with an unbelievable dedication to helping people and with fine scientific mindsets - they have to keep up to date with what they’re administering and all the tests that go into its legitimacy, pros and cons - only on TV and maybe in the odd isolated case are they corrupt and susceptible. That’s public healthcare at least, in private healthcare they’re often supposed to push whatever the private companies who own them tell them to recommend - private companies are rewarded for the absolute opposite to doctors…

My apologies it was a rather rude sigh that I didn’t have to put into words before tackling your response.

Farming is already incentivised to be sustainable, they have a finite amount of land on which to produce as much as possible - except of course in the case that aggressive expansion is permitted into other habitats like rainforests - but that is that same greedy human input that will inevitably be replaced by technology. It’s entirely possible to avoid that, so much is wasted afterall, it’s all in the name of making far more than we actually need to make more money at the expense of peoples’ health and waistlines. Food chains and plants are easy to sustain. Minerals just need recycling - they don’t die, they just get chucked in landfills. All the minerals that ever were in the ground are still on the earth - except for the odd thing we send into space that didn’t come back. They just need to get reused - technology could no doubt help recycling become competitive with simply throwing stuff away.

But ummm… UBI?

Let’s not get off topic now.

Have we produced enough for 7+ billion people a day? I really don’t know.

Your answers are easy coming, but written while the oceans, the reefs are suffocating in an ocean that is polluted with human use bi-products in a warming cycle that is destined to flood the Earth with rising tides.

Doctors trust that what is in vaccines is what’s in vaccines, but some scientists have started testing vaccines to see what else might be in there and they found unnecessary additives in a vast majority of vaccines that cause a host of problems, but namely and more pervasively neurological damages, diseases, and disorders to progress unnaturally, ending people’s lives much earlier with for instance Alzheimers, then others die still in their mother’s wombs. I can’t remember what thread I spoke of vaccine research and its revelations.

UBI will be irrelevant if products to buy simply run out on a permanent basis.

If we’re going to live in lala land, sure UBI all the way…I vote for 7+ billion people to net one million a year each.

Is everyone forgetting that above all others, money is relative.

Give everyone a $million a year and a loaf of bread would probably cost $200,000.

It is the same as the raising of minimum wage, it merely causes the prices of everything to increase. And during the shuffle, the rich get even richer.

I think we should approach the problem from the perspective of need. We have universal basic needs, and money is not one of them

When technology has eliminated many jobs, the basic needs will not have changed much - food, water, shelter.

I think it would be better to universally supply food, water, and shelter before giving people free money from which poorer decisions can be made

Money would serve in the realm of desire. Television, internet, luxury items

I think humanity would be well served with sustainable solutions (in terms of population growth and limited resources) to the needs of food, water, and shelter.

Maybe start with expanding things like food stamps

Why does everything have to be hyperbole with you? All your points of view are so extreme…

I did request level-headed factual and logical explanation but I think you’re more concerned with doom-saying. Yes, there do appear to be environmental issues that might disrupt the whole thing, but my point isn’t just to say that UBI would be easy to pull off worldwide and we’ll definitely last long as a species to see it, just that increased unemployment tending towards total unemployment IS happening, and UBI is a neat and simple solution to this inevitability, even if we’re a way away from getting enough people such as yourself to appreciate this fact.

Whether or not you think UBI is a ridiculous prospect is irrelevant if something to its effect is going to be necessary whether you like it or not. Glib statements like “oh yes let’s just give 7+ billion people a million each” can’t detract from this.

As long as money is the media of control, you are going to be impoverished. That cannot and will not ever be avoided.

Money DOES NOT solve social problems. It CREATES them.

And the ONLY good use for technology is Per Individual, not to maintain national or global power structures, but to maintain each individual independently (much like an Iron Man suit). And if you want to help “everyone” then give everyone an Iron man suit.

LOL…an iron man suit? I’ll take an iron maiden suit with all the sound tracks preprogrammed in.

Your use of the word “everything” is hyperbole. Actually, my statements are far from exaggeration.

There are plenty of articles about the nature of our world that cover, just as I have, a myriad of issues that are actual events, not doom-saying paranoia. Wake up buster!

This is not the capitalist way. We create technologies in order to remove the need to pay humans to work. Technological growth is the only significant factor in economic output growth, besides population growth.

The money is not with the employed, but with the technology owners. As the return on capital more and more outstrips the return on labour, the money will drain towards the owners, who will have to provide enough to the labourers that they can buy things and make them money - otherwise there’s no return on capital.

It’s not that binary, of course: most “labourers” have pensions and savings that profit from the capital returns. But money will stagnate, and certainly if there’s limited or no inheritance tax, society will to and we’ll be back to a feudal hierarchy.

Money is relative to economic capacity. If you just print an extra million dollars per person, that will happen. If you use a more redistributive/less regressive financial system, it won’t on any significant scale.

“More redistributive”??
Are you talking about forming a flat wealth distribution??? :open_mouth:

Anything even close to that is de-globalization. You could get burned at the stake for that.

“Decelerating? You mean bringing your car to a dead stop on the motorway?”

The current system is regressive, and growing more so all the time. Wealth inequalities and capital mobility are at pre-WWI levels.

The increased prices of everything can be caused by giving everyone more and more money or by the raising of wgaes, thus also by minimum wages. Then ( a new) immigration of poor people has to start in order to curb this process a bit, only a bit, and for a short time, only for a short time. So, indeed, in the long run, more and more humans become poorer and poorer, whereas less and less humans become richer and richer.

This development is unfair, destructive, dangerous, stupid, and it is going to be stopped (the question is only: when?). Even the question of how is not relevant, because at last nature is going to stop it.

:laughing:

Or what about an “iron horse” suit?

Again: If not the human beings, then nature itself is going to stop that unfair, destructive, dangerous and - last but not least - stupid development.

Infinite growth is not possible on our planet. So, globalism also means the last step of ecnomic growth on our globe.

What you have is this:Natural Power Distribution Curve.png
That is the natural stable power distribution of a free flowing aggregating substance (money through absolute Free-Trade). The inanimate universe itself conforms to this law (A true Philosopher’s Stone).
$$ e = \frac{1}{(1 + r^2)}$$

What you want is this, except times a million wide:SAM Power Distribution.png
That is an organic distribution of power or information and wealth (similar to the cell structure in a living body). Note that it no longer has free flow of the wealth throughout the system. The wealth distribution is compartmentalized (“cells”). With such a structure (SAM Coops), a supremely stable, intelligent, and capable Man can form, but not be predesigned, rather allowed to grow by discovered need.

Both are stable distributions of wealth, but the first, inanimate distribution, has an upper limit, after which it can no longer contain or control any more mass (people and androids), thus chooses to eliminate the excess to avoid potential instability (Globalism). The organic structure allows for much, much greater stable growth with almost unlimited mass potential. If formed of living creatures, it is like the first is an amoeba and the second is a homosapien, billions of times more massive (more populated) and capable.

What is now being called “Universal Basic Income” cannot be profitable to the masses unless distributed as the second structure, simply because there are too many people for the first structure to remain stable. People in excess of the needs of the structure must be eliminated … and will be (are being).

The challenge is one of how to prevent those still using their extreme power from continuing to lust for the first, inanimate (inevitably lifeless, Clock-Work Orange style) technological structure. In theory, the answer is simple - just compartmentalize opportunity for wealth. Businesses, companies and corporations already do that in their limited way and thus become powerful and organized. But businesses are not the entirety of life and hopefully never become such without first learning of MIJOT and stable distributions.

If it isn’t being done the right way, it necessarily is being done a wrong way.

Compartmentalize wealth via “cell structures”, SAM Coops, don’t just flood humanity with more syrup.

Absolute Free Trade doesn’t and can’t exist, because money is a human convention governed by other human conventions. Nature has no laws to aggregate matter more due to derivatives of matter, for example, no government bond particles, no energy generation in the firm expectation of future energetic transfer, and no consideration of minimal requirements that a society certainly has. In addition, a power law scales according to constants; the height of the peak and the width of the spread depend on arbitrary choices, and there is no closed system to validate it. So people can pick and argue post hoc for a profile that supports their politics, but it has little predictive power or relevance.

In short: that’s nice, as far as Just-So Stories go.

A distribution that perfectly fits that curve doesn’t exist either. And I hate to break it to you at your age in life, but humans and their wild imaginings are still all a part of nature and governed by natural law. But the reason that I specified “absolute free trade” was that humans can naturally interfere with the natural free-flow distribution and aggregation of power, most specifically the religions have that capacity. That is what national boundaries are about (despite the pretense that they don’t exist). But without mindful intention, power, even among humans, will follow natural laws of fluid mechanics and aggregation, especially money. Why do you think they call it “liquidating” and “amassing”. Free flow is a free flow and amassing is aggregation. They occur at predictable speeds and due to specific principles. Nothing is actually random except to the naive.

That is your theory is it? Human affairs are totally independent of nature and the result of only free-will? Is that a theory that you have put a great deal of thought into or is it more like, “Of course no one can sail around the world. They would fall off!

Again, a well studied conclusion, or … just another off the top opinion? You seriously believe that there is no such thing as economic theory and economic science??

Get you tickets soon.

So you’re an avid supporter of the theory, “no one can know”, much like Feynmann and the Quantum Magi. Is that a derivative of the theory, “Ignorance is bliss”? Or perhaps that “ignorance in others is power”?

Let me guess…
You believe that the current power distribution among people today is very close to that first graph merely by accidental coincidence? Or is it due merely to evil Republicans?

Touché. Except it really seems like you have been spooked by one side of a story and you just aren’t aware that this is giving you an exaggerated perspective. I happen to agree that we’re a bit fucked environmentally, I am absolutely not a climate change denier, but you need to put all these reports into context. Yes the planet is heating up, reefs are dying, sea levels are rising, and it’s all pretty economically costly. But does this all mean that taking care of the future of the economy is all for naught? It’s a slow process and more serious in some places than others. But regardless of how far we get and doomsaying aside, we are still tending towards full unemployment and beyond psychotic solutions like genocide, things like UBI will be necessary.

By the way, the vaccine article was pretty laughable, somebody issues a dare and there’s no mention whatsoever of anyone taking it up or otherwise. It’s just implied that nobody would when it would be fine if someone actually did. You’re missing tricks like these, because you’re only listening to what you want to hear and feeding your own bias. Try and stay critical and you’ll come across less hysterical.

But besides slavery and voluntary work, isn’t removing the need to pay humans to work the same as removing the need for humans to work? Unless that was your point - that the latter won’t happen and we are tending back towards slavery and or voluntary work (you mentioned going back to feudal hierarchy)? I agree that the capitalist way is to reduce expenses, i.e. reduce wages, so we are currently in the process of gradually removing pay from wage labourers and transferring it to capitalists, but the result of this will be that our economy will be reduced to a circulation of money amongst just them. How then will wage labourers continue to acquire things they need to live unless they are free or money is taxed away from capitalists and a basic income given to all the rest? UBI seems like a fairly obvious solution here.

I know right :laughing:

I guess, the reason why many people do not understand this is that they do not really know the logic, especially the mathematics behind it.

The “universal basic income” will never lead to a better economic/social status, but always to more injustice, because the same minority will become even richer, whereas the same poor majority will become even poorer.

If you have physical evidence of energy being created in response to confidence in future energy, or of matter accumulating at hyper-gravitational rates dues to additional force generated by the existence of gravity and not mass, please disabuse me of my theory and show you’re not handwaving. My theory doesn’t rely on free will at all, though, just relations and processes - which are different in financial markets and economies to gas laws or physical relations.

Complete strawman. You present a scale-free power distribution as evidence of the free market following physical laws. That’s not an argument you can call “economic science”. But I’m certainly aware of economics, econometrics and economic science. Those latter two use large bodies of statistical data to investigate hypotheses, so please provide your evidence.

Saying “you’re wrong” is not saying “no-one can possibly know”. Saying “people can claim whatever they like with vague graphs and handwaving” is not an ontological claim about the nature of fiscal transactions.

Is it? You have no axes, so it’s an easy claim to make. Are you plotting capital or income? What’s the population - world, US, US income earners?

As a probability curve, wealth within a society shows a long-tail distribution:

The curve parameters are clearly changing over time - compare the changes in the middle and the ends. What governs these parameters? What are the parameters for “pure free trade”? What are the optimal parameters for a society, maximised to which ends?

Power laws are used to approximate wealth distributions: I’m not denying that. Depending on the society, a power law could be almost uniformly egalitarian or profoundly tyrannical - that’s why you have measures like the Lorenz curve and Gini coefficient, which basically assume a Pareto power distribution. Neither of which depend on pure free market capitalism or any other political philosophy.

Well, I actually can do that, but you have never been very good at analogies, I suspect you’re not bright enough to follow along. Prove me wrong about that.

It is a proven fact that ultra-minuscule EMR pulses veer into a higher density of ultra-minuscule EMR pulses. That is energy accumulating due to the detection of higher potential of energy. Energy, whether inanimate or social, is always merely freeing from one place or type and propagating toward another. It is never actually “created” in either case.

Of course you might want to argue that the original pulses were not conscious and thus did not have emotional “confidence” in the same sense as human behavior, but then we are talking about an analogy of the same outward behavior, not the exact same mechanism for that behavior. Laws and principles are about the behavior, not the reasons for the behavior.

Now, did you follow that? Was it too complicated? Are you “disabused”?

I’d give you an analogy for that too if I knew what the hell you meant by it. Although I suspect that you have no idea that “gravity” is merely a gradient of an ultra low-density mass field. Mass particles are made of “gravity-field” and vsvrsa. Mass particles are merely extremely dense wheras the ambient “gravity field” is much, much lower density (precisely following that first graph). And interestingly all due to the prior explanation of ultra-minuscule EMR (“Affectance”) veering into a traffic jam of the same, forming a “mass particle”, cluster.

The “hyper-gravitational rates” would be due to the fact that the affectance propagates at the speed of light (it IS “light”). Particles migrate toward each other (“gravitate”) at a much, much slower speed than the affectance (the ultra-minuscule EMR) that veers into mass particles.

Economically, the analogy is that a mass particle is analogous to a bank with money flowing in and out tof the ambient population. The bank accumulates to a maximum set by the region in which the bank does business, the “ambient field”. Subatomic mass particles do that exact same thing with “energy” or “ultra-minuscule EMR pulses” or “affectance”.

As far as “gravity without mass”, the thing they now call “dark matter” is exactly that, a higher density mass field than normal, but not close to that of actual mass particles. And when approaching a higher density field, such as stated prior, random EMR veers into the higher density at literally “light speeds”, not gravitational speeds.

I don’t know how much that really fit what you were trying to say, but it seems to cover the bases.

How different they are is merely a matter of one being able to see the analogous patterns. As I said, that isn’t something you have shown to be very good at doing. One can’t prove to a dog that the Internet is real.

Well, you DID deny that, but okay … moving on…

Well, you were doing good until that last statement. You began by saying “depending on the society” but then ended with “independent of political philosophy”. How can you have both?

The social construct and/or political structure determine how free the monetary flow actually is. It isn’t merely about being capitalist or not. How secure people feel has a great deal to do with it, thus even their religious beliefs and physical comforts get into the game. My statement was that when the monetary flow is free of obstructions, regardless of whatever causes, banks and banking will cause an accumulation (a “mass particle”) that will reach a saturation level for the region that the banks encompass. Those who own the banks, accumulate the wealth (because it is a usury con game).

That is exactly what has taken place over the last 100 years as all economies gradually got absorbed into the global economy. And that is exactly why you now have that first graph with only 1-3% of the population with a fantastic wealth and only 1-3% of those with ultra-extreme wealth.

That is just the money part. I was actually referring more to the complete power package, not merely monetary gains. Money is a crude and not always accurate measure of social power, which is formed of directed social energy or effort (the very source of money’s value).

This is what I found amongst others:

  1. W O R L D :


Reichtum_Weltkarte.jpg

  1. U. S. A. :