An update on Universal Basic Income (UBI)

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. :

I hope everyone can understand the similarity in my first natural power distribution graph and this statistical graph:
Natural Power Distribution Curve.png
Wealth Distribution in USA.jpg

And since you mentioned it, I am not the first to realize the similarity between physical power distribution and social:

Perhaps the distinction is merely that I know Why.

[youtube]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JypDrw4CHhw[/youtube]
But note that the universe is NOT one huge particle, rather countless minuscule particles - DISTRIBUTED ENERGY/WEALTH (a lesson for dictator and god wannabes).

Thus maintain cohesion and stability by having information-linked multiple peaks of power, thusly:
SAM Power Distribution.png

Unwittingly, Aristotle said the same thing in his [Aristotle, Politics, book II], as does the Talmud.

So the argument is something along the lines of “this Pareto-style wealth distribution that we have is necessarily going to occur, so UBI will do nothing to change this”?

Why does this distribution happen though?

In developed countries, it strikes me as partly the fault of the less wealthy as well as the more wealthy. Standards are set, partly as a result of a naturally emerging consensus amongst people and partly artificially by the advertising industry. Wherever you appear to stand comparatively determines the first impressions of others, which are made up in an irrationally short period of time. It takes a disproportionately long time and large amount of effort to rectify these, so it “pays” to try and live up to them.

Obviously business is set up to supply the good and services required to live up to these expectations, and to add to the challenge these expectations change over time - because once too many people come to successfully adhere to these standards they lose their competitive edge, the consensus evolves and advertising moves on to creating new fashions. To be “comfortably off” is to be able to stay on top of these moving goalposts, to be particularly “rich” is to be pushing the boundaries of what it looks like to live the most desirable kind of life, and to be “poor” is to be struggling to meet social standards at all.

It’s important to remember that these qualifications are culturally dependent, to people inside certain cultures the vast majority of what you are exposed to is within your own culture. Even if you are fantastically rich compared to the poor in less developed countries, that is mostly off your radar and isn’t “your life”. And in more developed countries, we have a good view of ALL levels of wealth… but almost no view of what it takes to get there. It’s patently obvious why there is resentment amongst the “poor” amount inequality in living standards, but it’s a favourite of pro-capitalists to criticise them on the grounds of envy (when really, envy is driving the whole thing from bottom to top - all levels of wealth develop feelings of entitlement based on their expectations based on what they are exposed to. It’s just only a problem when you can’t afford it, which is most notable amongst the poor).

All of this should be pretty obvious stuff.

So given the struggle of the poor in light of what they are exposed to, there is huge incentive to spend all of your money - no matter how much that is - to keep up with appearances. The media answered this by creating a kind of worship of the well-off, particularly the nouveau-riche and the unintelligent - to maximise jealousy. The credit industry offers the extra cash to make it seem even easier to reach the standards being sold to the less wealthy - but of course just as a way to lock them into paying the company owners in reliable installments. The poor demand the supply and the rich supply the demand… so to speak.

There is the “you could die tomorrow” strategy that falls foul to the above and there is the prudent strategy, which just allows capitalists to set prices higher (inflation). The latter stalls the prudent and accelerates the desperation of the former.

So you could say the poor bring it on themselves, but the rich take advantage of it. And UBI would just enable this exploitation and inflate prices such that the struggle simply moulds to new parameters?

Currently the power of capitalists to control the running of their businesses means they can just adapt because they are the ones in control. Currently, the shaming and demonising of the excessively rich is doing nothing to stem their ascension. There are no effective controls in place to keep the top in check. Tax havens go unchallenged, sympathy for the rich being penalised for working hard endures, and as I covered before: advertising/branding facilitates the illusion of product differentiation, creating faux-monopolies/oligopolies within markets of essentially similar products that would otherwise be kept more in check by “perfect competition”.

Given the absence of effective controls to keep the top in check, forcible taxation is the only way to get money to circulate back amongst the less wealthy.
But without further controls over capitalists, the above cycle will persist rendering even solutions by taxation ineffective.

The challenge therefore is to come up with effective controls over the more wealthy, either within the current economical model or through a new one, such that the inevitably encroaching need for solutions such as UBI will actually work long term.

No, the argument is that the UBI-alone will make it worse because what is causing it is the relatively unobstructed global free flow of money or influence. UBI alone will cause even greater fluidity.

And the only way to do that is to form a stable wealth system that is compartmentalized. Compartmentalization causes the natural stable aggregation of wealth to be widely distributed. If the compartments are small enough, the distribution is inherently very wide, getting to literally everyone. Such also brings the bottom and the top of the wealth scale much closer together, not merely in money but in life style and understanding. Have many atoms, not merely one big black hole.

And you cannot force taxation on those funding the law making.

Exactly. You have got it. =D>

I believe this is what the Classical Liberal ideal is meant to achieve with perfect competition, and I agree that it is a favourable distribution of power. But I agree because even though your “natural” power distribution has less people in power, and that makes decision making easier and faster, your “organic” power distribution is able to be more nuanced - and whilst fluidity may be compromised “horizontally” it is increased “vertically”, which keeps the “top” in check. As I said, we are currently lacking controls to keep the top in check, and in the sense that your compartmentalised model does this, I support potential solutions such as this.

Seeing as something like UBI is becoming increasingly necessary due to the rise in technology replacing the need for humans to work (or at least to “pay” humans to work), I would be willing to consider anything that can allow it to work.

Assuming that individual businesses are the “cells” in the organism, the problem is that their own success causes them to get cancerous and grow at the expense of other surrounding cells. I wonder if the reason we haven’t been able to cure cancer is the same reason we have been unable to cure our economy? Of course, it’s not considered a success when actual cells get cancerous, it’s due to self-replication errors as far as I understand. By the same analogy, businesses are able to make certain concessions such that they are able to grow out of proportion, so we need some kind of immune system to stop that from happening for the benefit of the whole economy.

As I covered, one of these concessions may be the distribution of misinformation via advertisement. This is an entire industry dedicated to the fostering of irrationality and distorted decision making. If you’re in the same industry as your competition, say so - don’t spend huge amounts of time, energy and money on trying to falsely differentiate yourself. If there isn’t any intrinsic motivation to do this (I don’t think there currently is) then this is where the immune system has to come in.

Another source of misinformation is that companies are private, their inner workings are opaque. The most fundamental inner working that is not being communicated is that of the “for-profit” model. Quite literally this is the excess of revenue relative to expenses, and quite literally this is what all contributing parties earn relative to what they are paid. Profit is quite literally the act of paying people less than what they earn the company. This needs to be understood. Also, knowledge of one anothers’ wages are opaque to those within the company. Would you still feel motivated to work for a company if you knew how much everyone else was being paid, and if you knew that everyone else knew this too? Most likely you would be happy for some people within the company to be paid more than others, but to what extent?

Both internal fluidity of information about the company is needed and external fluidity of information about companies in general are needed.

All good points. And all taken care of by proper Social Anentropic Molecularization, SAM Co-ops (a different topic). The bottom line of this topic is that compartmentalization must be done, else the UBI leads to greater disaster.

The SAM Co-op structure is bound to a constitution that inherently inhibits overgrowth (inherent compartmentalization - the best kind). This is accomplished by requiring that the decision-making within each cell is responsible for ensuring that each “cell member” (person within that small group) is being taken care of as well as every other member in the group. But that doesn’t mean that every person is treated identically, rather that every person is being treated in accord with their needs balanced against the cell resources. The “energy” or resource distribution within each cell is not the same for all cells. Each cell, through the philosophy and news networks chooses its own resource distribution method so as to achieve the constitutionally required MIJOT (Maximum Integral of Joy Over Time) for all its members.

Social cancer, like bodily cancer, is a problem for a society because the resources are being diverted away from the cell’s functionality to the society. People with devotion to outside interests such as to send money out of the country or vote to alter one country’s laws or actions for sake of some other outside interest (foreign countries, religions, or corporate profits) despite the damage that it does to one’s own country is “social cancer”. Equally if a cell’s resources are being mindlessly squandered, ignoring philosophical rational and local situation news, a consuming cancer is the result. Again, this is prevented by segments of the constitutional laws governing decision-making responsibility.

In addition, since you mentioned it, all activities within a SAM Co-op are openly recorded and remain open for future debate concerning best management. All activities are transparent to the degree necessary to ensure constitutional compliance (much like having open books to the IRS auditor, although much closer nit). And any decision that has been made can be quickly un-made through the required Resolution Debating process.

Unlike small businesses, a SAM Co-op is a small community or family (potentially only 4 members and rarely if ever as many as 75) wherein everyone knows everyone and everyone is being fully represented in one way or another in the community decision making process. Being left out is literally illegal. And if the resources of any cell “dry up” for whatever reason, members, perhaps all members, are free to find another cell that has room and need for them. The overall body absorbs any damaged cell’s human resource. Such is similar to a town or business downsizing or going out of business thus the its citizens or employees are free to find another town or job.

The constitutional structure of a SAM Co-op is also organic in that it learns and adjusts to its individual environment and situation. Even though every SAM Co-op has the same fundamental constitution, it is expected that every “cell” has its own amendments and life-styles (no mandated universal dress-code or behavior other than to obey their own constitution - which is very strictly supervised).

Further immunity to cancer is established by the fact that philosophically, surrounding “cells” of a “corrupt cell” (a cell not following its own constitution) must participate in dissolving the corrupted cell. The only sign of corruption is “Are they following their own constitutional laws?” Thus sufficient open-recording, “transparency” is required between specific elements within neighboring cells (not necessarily to every member). Thusly social cancer is detected and acted upon by whatever means is chosen to be best suited while at the same time, extreme diversity in life-style is expected (different types of cells as neighbors in the same body, harmonious and compatible merely because they are visibly obeying their own constitution).

SAM Power Distribution.png
Each a SAM Co-op networked together into Man, utilizing all accrued wisdom of the ages.

But even if the SAM Co-op isn’t the best way to go, compartmentalization is mandatory to avoid global misery under a self-perpetuating Godwannabe reign. Free flow and fluidity of social influence must be restricted. And btw, that is exactly what the Hebrew word “Ahdam” means, and the proposed “first Man-agement” method to limit the senseless chaos and provide stability. The attempt to control it all, was the temptation that destroyed the relative paradise.

This pretty much exactly describes Communism, so you have no disagreement from me here with what you’re calling SAM Co-ops.

I have a concern over the illegality of solitude, but I like the harmony between the sizes of communes and the maximum number of people that one is able to really “know”.

Historically, the challenge has been “how to realistically transform what we have now into what we need?”

No, it is not Communism. In Communism, there is a hierarchical state that owns everything and militarily, medically, and mentally controls all behavior. The SAM Co-ops own their own “property” and decide for themselves how to behave within the limits of the common constitution. It is almost the exact opposite of Communism, but actually it is none of the 3 major stereotypes yet contains elements of each.

Illegality??
No one is required to be a member of any cell. The whole thing is entirely voluntary. The constitution prevents capture of members against their will, not the other way around. And solitude within the family is limited only by the need to be represented in decision making. There need not be little cameras in everyone’s bedroom and shower, but that would be an independent Co-op’s choice.

With a SAM Co-op, you simply find some friends, study how it is done, and start doing it. It doesn’t require campaigning for public approval, nor does it require that everyone ELSE is doing the same thing. Each cell is taking care of itself independently even if there is only one cell, one SAM Co-op (“Anentropic”). Others grow if and when they choose. The information interconnection between Co-ops is what allows them to intellectually grow; be smarter, wiser, cooperate, and be more capable. I would think it unwise to attempt a nationally illegal activity as the core occupation or behavior. And the whole point is to be wiser toward MIJOT.

The current ruling system - the globalism - is more like communism than many usually think it is. The only difference between the both is merely a surface one; the globalistic one works by privatization, the communistic one by deprivatization (communization, socialization); the economic meaning of both is always exploitation, thus impoverishment; the political result of both is always wars (all kind of wars), anarchy, chaos, afterwards change, if not extinction.

Very true.

If you’re going to be exploited, at least ensure that it is by someone you know. :sunglasses:

James, maybe you remember that we had the following dialogue:

And if you are going to be exploited by someone you do not know, ask yourself how and why this could happen and get knowledge about that someone.