Part one:
Good to be talking to you!
Been thinking about your reply. I think using poverty as a reason to not migrate to a better area is an error. People without money have migrated throughout the centuries. It is a desperation that drives migration. So that brings the question, Is there real desperation?
Part two:
What makes a people desperate? Well, lack of food, water, freedom and housing are the basics. Religion and politics are the two that reach a community not an individual. Can we say that those who live in poverty in the USA lack a drive other than money? We know that you can pack essentials and hike to another location. We know you can move your kids with minimal.
Part 3
Right now it takes zero money and zero legal to register your kids as home schooled. So an impoverished family can register their kids as home schooled and legally walk across the country. Etc etc. there are ways to migrate that do not cost that much. So why no migration? Comfort. Sound bogus?? It is not. Essentials are met more often than not. Luxuries are the one thing that is not met.
Impoverished in this country get more free medical than in many countries especially for children. And medical is a big issue.
What you suggest can cause more social issues than now exist. Humans are animals that are no different than other herd/pack animals. We only have sentience as our difference. Our instincts lead us to congregate. Pull up satellite photos of the USA at night. Think about it .
There is more that can be discussed, most definitely.
Yes. I agree with what you say here. It is also true that desperation has caused impoverished people to migrate.
What is your opinion regarding the concept, the proposal, that a good economic system - structured to encourage creativity and Ethical Technology - would continuously create more wealth, so that as a result of the thoughtful way it is structured all citizens would share in enjoying some of it.
As to what is meant by “Ethical Technology,” see the literature below:
The literature you wanted me to read was not attached to your post , sorry.
Hi, Kris
When I said “the literature below” I meant: the titles listed below in the Signature. …the references 'for your reading enjoyment.
’
For example, see the 2nd and 4th paragraphs on p. 18 of LIVING WELL.
The discussion there is on Ethical Technologies.
I don’t get signatures on this little phone it is set for on in the settings but, apparently this phone or program for phone won’t allow it or I am utterly ignorant of this thing, that last is the most probable.
Readers may find to be of interest the article found when you Google:
medium - introducing the UBI Center
There a brief history of the Universal Basic Income concept is presented, and news of a data-driven open-source site designed to test various UBI plans.
Also see this link in Wikipedia on the topic: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Basic_income
or this link - more-specifically on UBI:
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ubi
Or, you may prefer this clearly-written account of how the UBI has been implemented around the world, and the success it has had:
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Basic_inc … _the_world
UBI has only been implemented on a trial basis in a couple of countries and there are no clear public reports as to how the ventures fared.
Sounds like another chapter in the How to Destroy a Nation manual. The first chapter is on eliminating occupation (jobs), the easiest way to destroy a nation.
Free healthcare, free food, free education, free housing, and now free money as well. Why not. Of course like gold and jewelry, if everyone has it, it is worthless.
People rush in. Jobs rush out. Nation goes bankrupt. Poverty explodes. Socialists bathe in domination.
I suspect that UBO, Universal Basic Occupation, would be a better tactic. Give a job to everyone. It shouldn’t take a genius to figure out where that leads. Just ask Stalin.
Papa Stalin did the best he could, pal. You ever been to Russia? It’s a big ass frozen field with like three factories. It’d take at least a hunerd years to get that place up and running.
If you took that same revolution and made it happen now, instead, the chances of success would be astronomically higher.
Perhaps you could relay that to Mr Putin.
Don’t you worry about me and Putin. We talk politics all the time when we aren’t wrestling bears and riding four wheelers.
The fruit of a decadent society. You need more globalism.
obsrvr wrote
I agree.
Looked at these, then looked at the amount of people that the government knows about in the USA, then looked at National debt and how much it would take from each of us to pay this debt off.
Strike one in my opinion for UBI.
Humans are corruptible. Humans take advantage of free things, they lie, cheat and connive. Look at the abuses in food stamps and welfare
Strike 2
Our government is f***ed up right now. We have crappy con artists in Congress and Senate in both parties. Both parties think that they should be the only political parties.
Strike 3
I can’t get behind UBI for those reasons and probably others that I have not yet thought of. Sorry my friend.
That is why some economists rationally argue that the national debt should not totally ever be paid down. it is partly owed to Americans: to those who have purchased government debt instruments [T-notes, T-bills] as a security measure.
In the initial post of this thread, I wrote: “Do we need now to put into effect the UBI - which stands for “Universal Basic Income.” Or some well-thought out form of it
On the web I found this analysis of what is called “The Freedom Dividend.” It is a proposal for a well-thought-out form of UBI. The analysis explains how the plan would be funded, how much it would cost, what would result from it, and other practical implications.
Here is a safe-to-open link to it: yang2020.com/policies/the-freedom-dividend/
Then see these details as to how exactly it would be paid for – without adding to thee national debt: freedom-dividend.com/
A critical review of the proposal is found here: taxfoundation.org/andrew-yang-v … ic-income/ Unfortunately the model used to calculate the costs makes some unwarranted assumptions, such as that there will, as a result, be a decrease in economic activity.
Actually, the opposite is likely to occur - due to technological innovation encouraged by the plan. The recent winners of the Nobel Prize in Economics demonstrated research that showed that people who receive a grant do not do not cease working; the labor force does not shrink. The evidence bears this out.
Some objective facts about UBI plans are available at this site: medium.com/ubicenter/introducin … a8011bfc39
Does anyone else have a view on this topic? Let’s hear it!
Or, would the resulting economic growth make it all worth-while? What are your opinions on the subject?
l.
.
Found an interesting discussion here:
viewtopic.php?f=3&t=194787&p=2724243&hilit43
Can anyone update us on some positive developments made in the last five years in progress in the direction of a needs-based economy?
If you know of any, please respond.
I’d like to hear from you!
ETHICS AND ECONOMICS
Is everyone who may be interested in the topics of Ethics, democracy, and economics aware of this fascinating site informing us about the concept of Democracy in the workplace, rather than the more-common hierarchical structure?
Check out this link: institute.coop/publications
What do you think about the fact that these cooperatives actually exist and are practical functioning entities?
When Ethics is applied to Economics we learn that there are alternative ways of organizing a business - within the capitalist system - where workers have a say in the setting of their pension size, their pay, the projects they want to work on; etc How about that:!: 
