Discussion of the recent unfolding of history.

Gloominary wrote:
Taxing the rich to pay for the poor would likely never affect you, except that it might raise your wages and make society a healthier, smarter, and happier place.

Anyway you slice it, the rest of society will have to, not only pay more tax, but work harder.

Nope. I've been through the numbers on this. Raise taxes on the top, cut taxes on the middle, institute negative tax on the bottom. Most people are better off than before.

But the point I really want to highlight here is that even though my plan involves a taxcut for any class you could ever aspire to inhabit, and raise your wages, and increase the health and education of society, you STILL wouldn't go along with it because the principle has been completely overlooked, which is to make the poor suffer; that's all you care about and that's all the Right cares about. Just like the baby video showed that the kid was willing to take less tokens for himself if it meant the other kid gets even less.

You will make your own life harder just to make the poor suffer.

I want to make things fairer, not differently unfair.

Your definition of fair is who licks the most boots gets the rewards. Ones who refuse to lick boots gets no reward.

We shouldn't tax employees to pay for the voluntarily unemployed, and if employers are paying employees a fair wage, than they shouldn't be taxed either.

"Fair wage" here has the meaning of a wage determined by the most desperate worker underbidding all others.
"Fair wage" here does NOT mean a fair division of the value of the final product. Nor does "fair" mean that the employee agreed to any such divisions, but the terms are "fairly" shoved down his throat.

Some shouldn't have to worker harder to feed, clothe and take care of society because others won't pull their weight.

Yes, get to work licking those boots you feckless maggots!

I don't just want a more equal distribution of money, I want a more equal distribution of work.

Oh goodie... a corner for everyone to stand on.

But you need to punish the lazy.

Yes, how diabolical of me.

Indeed.

Sexual selection is a natural process. There is no one who determined what primitive humans should consider sexy in order to advance the species in the right direction.

Altho genes play a major role in determining us, I'm not a genetic reductionist, our genes are dynamic and help determine our (sub)conscious behavior, and our (sub)conscious behavior, including sexual, is dynamic and helps determine our genes.
Our culture and environment shapes us, but we in turn shape our culture and environment, it's a two way street.

Sure, but who shaped the environment to specifically favor white people? Who said, "We need to rally together to shape our environment to favor the white humanoids. This must be teleological because if left to chance, blacks might become smarter and we can't have that!" Like I said, no one gets any credit.

The only reason whites are being oppressed is that they're uneducated and proud of it.

even liberal whites supposedly have white privilege and are racist, I'm not making this stuff up, believe me I really wish I was, I couldn't even if I tried:

I can't imagine that's prolific.

What has people pissed is the arrogant old white men who think they can, for example, tax tv in order to be fair to corporations. Old white men are being replaced by brown women all across the country because what they lack in brains they more than make up for in having heart and consideration. That's a trade I'd make any day. It's a standing offer: I'll trade 1 redneck for 10 mexicans. All day, every day. Good riddance!

Now, you can shove your head in a hole in refusal to see my point or continue thinking it's irrational white guilt like the video you posted. It really makes no difference to me since I'm just doing you the favor of cluing you in.

I don't feel guilty for slavery, but I can't stand those arrogant codgers thinking everything is common sense. Zero to do with guilt.
Serendipper
Philosopher

Posts: 1747
Joined: Sun Aug 13, 2017 7:30 pm

Gloominary wrote:
The point isn't that a utopia can be created, the point is that servitude can be eliminated. It could have been 40 years ago.

Servitude can't be eliminated, either it can be equal, fair, unequal or unfair.

What evidence do you have to support the assertion that servitude cannot be eliminated? What? Because machines are making so much more work to do? That by the year 3000 we will be working 24 hrs a day because of such scarcity? Pft.

Friedman visited one of those statist countries back in the 70s and said "Why not replace all those shoveling workers with a machine?" The reply was, "Well, we're not really trying to accomplish anything but to provide jobs." Friedman replied, "In that case, why not give them spoons to shovel with?"

The point of jobs is not to provide jobs, but to do a job. Once the job is done, it's done. Everyone can go home now. We don't have to work just because you say so because we need some justification for our handouts. 90% of the jobs done are just digging holes and filling them in so that people can suffer for money. That's what it's all about.

The job of the machine is to make drudgery unnecessary.

Agreed.

How can you agree without suffering cognitive dissonance? If drudgery is unnecessary, then how can anyone be compelled to do it?

The job of the machine is to reduce drudgery as much as possible, but in 2019 and the foreseeable future, drudgery is still necessary.

But each year, less than before. Tick tock the countdown to a scarcity of scarcity. How will you make people suffer when machines have taken every job? There is no job that a machine can't do. Machines can even do artistic work like writing music, painting.

There are 150 million tax returns filed and 330,000,000 people, so I don't know how to divide the numbers, but the rate would be closer to 50% than 5%.

It's not more authoritarian than taxation now (or ever) and it's not compelling anyone to work harder or softer or compelling anyone to do anything except pay a % of their profits back into the system. Other than that, they're free to do what the hell ever: get a job, don't get a job, get rich, live in mom's basement, go to school, jump off a bridge,,, whatever.

Okay, let's say we improve working conditions and increase wages to make them fair, whatever we as a society decide fair is, which's what we should do.

How are you going to do that? "Let's say"? That's dictation. You cannot dictate wages higher. The only way to raise wages is to increase welfare. Give people more options so the corps have to compel them to work.

Let's say 25% of people provide superfluous goods (and services) for everyone, and 25% of people provide necessary goods for everyone.

Now if 12.5% of the people that provide superfluous goods for everyone, and 12.5% of the people that provide necessary goods for everyone, quit, and live off UBI or go on welfare, what does that entail?

I've asked oodles of people if they would quit their job if the gov sent $10k per year whether they work or not. Only one woman said yes because that's more than she gets now and would rather stay home with her kids. Everyone else would work and get the UBI. I know a woman who has to work with the flu (food service no less, spreading it to the customers) because if she doesn't, she'll lose her job. But with the UBI, she could tell her employer to suck it since if she loses her job, she doesn't starve. And since every other employee can also say that, then the employer would have to be more considerate of people. UBI adds to the power of people. Wages are a function of people's willingness to work. Prices are a function of people's willingness to buy. I don't know which will drop more. So if wages fall less than prices, it'll be a good thing for workers and consumers, and if wages and prices fall equally, it'll be a neutral thing. So it could be a neutral or even a good thing, so why're you worried? Prices can only fall because people do not have enough money to spend. Well,,, competition and automation also lowers prices, but this wouldn't happen in response to elimination of welfare. In response to no welfare, demand would fall off a cliff and prices would follow. Wages would then follow prices down the abyss and who can tell which would be lower. They'll just pay less for the shorter week. They can't really, because we've increased the minimum wage, and we'll continually adjust for inflation. Then everyone will get the minimum and no raises. Or they'll move to another country. How else do you expect companies to hire people to make stuff that no one has the money to buy? Or they might not lower wages in the first place, because they know it'll just mean people won't be able to buy their goods. Companies usually fire people when sales start to drop. Then their stock shoots up because of the elimination of employees. The insiders sell out before sales drop more and the company files bankruptcy. The minimum? That's$7.25. I don't call that "setting wages". A bump up to $15, I would. I just want to increase the minimum, not set every wage, altho perhaps we should lower the minimum wage small businesses have to pay. I agree. Well, setting prices, wages, Prices are secondary, wages are primary, if it gets too complicated, we don't have to set prices. And I only wanted to set them for food and housing. And I wanted to set them higher for big food and housing than small. We could also nationalize or unionize big food and housing, and run them more in the interests of workers, consumers and residents. Just an idea, but the main thing is wages. It seems much easier to regulate the amount of welfare and the minimum wage. Everything else will be in response to that in a free market. One more thing about prices, I wanted to have maximum prices for foods and housing, so businesses could charge whatever they want so long as they don't exceed them. I don't think price caps work either. I haven't researched it, but just took it for granted. forcing companies to hire, and generally micromanaging the economy is essentially what the communist dictators tried to do. I don't see why my plan has to entail that. I think you'll be pushed into micromanaging since every meddling will require more fixing. Serendipper Philosopher Posts: 1747 Joined: Sun Aug 13, 2017 7:30 pm ### Re: Boycott Google @Serendipper What evidence do you have to support the assertion that servitude cannot be eliminated? What? Because machines are making so much more work to do? I think you're exaggerating how productive we've become. A modern farmer feeds 100-150 people, whereas a medieval farmer fed himself, his family and maybe several others, but the medieval farmer and his wife made their own ceramics, clothes, built their own house and so on, they took care of almost all of their own needs, whereas the modern farmer is totally reliant on others. While I agree modern technology has made us more productive, It's not so much as we're that much more productive, as we're that much more interdependent. When machines have made us so productive, a man can not only use them to feed, clothe and shelter himself without relying on other men, but feed, clothe and shelter 100s or 1000s of others, well, at that point we won't even need society anymore, it'll be optional, because we can use machines to take care of all our needs just by pulling a lever and pressing a few buttons, but we're lightyears away from that. That by the year 3000 we will be working 24 hrs a day because of such scarcity? Pft. Many scientists are predicting an ecological collapse before the end of this century, because we've become too reliant on globalization and technology. Many are telling us it's not enough to make our technologies greener, because making them more efficient just means we'll produce even more with them. They're telling us we have to localize our economies, that we don't need to get fruits and vegetables from China and India, it's absurd, and that if we don't, we'll collapse back into the dark ages, where we'll have to work 12-16 hours a day. But you know what, again I think our productivity has been greatly exaggerated. Many native American tribes were able to take care of their needs just by laboring 4-5 hours a day, the early European migrants regarded them as lazy by their standards, so maybe getting rid of globalization and technology will make our lives more leisurely after all. Friedman visited one of those statist countries back in the 70s and said "Why not replace all those shoveling workers with a machine?" The reply was, "Well, we're not really trying to accomplish anything but to provide jobs." Friedman replied, "In that case, why not give them spoons to shovel with?" The point of jobs is not to provide jobs, but to do a job. Once the job is done, it's done. Everyone can go home now. We don't have to work just because you say so because we need some justification for our handouts. 90% of the jobs done are just digging holes and filling them in so that people can suffer for money. That's what it's all about. I agree some jobs are meaningless, but it's nowhere near as many as you're suggesting, it's probably more like a 3rd of jobs are meaningless, a 3rd make stuff that makes people happier, but isn't needed, and a 3rd makes stuff that's needed. How are you going to do that? "Let's say"? That's dictation. You cannot dictate wages higher. The only way to raise wages is to increase welfare. Give people more options so the corps have to compel them to work. In Canada, we're increasing the federal min wage from about 10 dollars to 15. Well, I say just increase it from 15 to 20, or 30, and adjust for inflation annually, so the working class can either support their families themselves, without relying on government, or save some money, or work part time and live a more leisurely life. Or go to college or university without having to borrow money or work full time. Or entrepreneur. UBI has never before been tried on a large scale, it's something radical and experimental, whereas just increasing minimum wage is something we already do, just increase it more. I've asked oodles of people if they would quit their job if the gov sent$10k per year whether they work or not. Only one woman said yes because that's more than she gets now and would rather stay home with her kids. Everyone else would work and get the UBI.

Inaction speaks louder than words.
I know several people who're on disability for depression, and while these people are depressed at times, they admitted to me that they could work full time if they had to, they'd just rather not.
Part of their depression probably stems from low self-esteem, from feeling useless, lack of exercise, poor diet, drug abuse, these people all have terrible life styles.
They need to get their shit together and go out there and contribute.
I suspect 10s of millions of Americans will abuse UBI if it should ever become option, to the point where the economy may collapse.

As for single moms, while I have empathy for widows and women fleeing deadbeats and physical and mental abuse (as I have empathy for men fleeing such conditions), most single moms are selfish, spoiled rotten and just want to raise their children their way (i.e. 0 discipline/respect), while relying on the state, alimony and child support from the father, meanwhile they gold dig, stay home, stuff their faces and watch reruns of Orpah and other daytime talk shows (i.e. misandrist propaganda).
And the stepdads almost invariably treat the kids like shit, but they'll put up with it to multiply the number of men they can leach off of.
The vast majority of single moms are a plague, a scourge on society.
Unnecessary single motherhood is child abuse.
We need to get rid of no fault divorce to encourage families to stay together.

Prices can only fall because people do not have enough money to spend. Well,,, competition and automation also lowers prices, but this wouldn't happen in response to elimination of welfare. In response to no welfare, demand would fall off a cliff and prices would follow. Wages would then follow prices down the abyss and who can tell which would be lower.

So it could be good, could be bad, could be neither, so you don't have a point.

Companies usually fire people when sales start to drop. Then their stock shoots up because of the elimination of employees. The insiders sell out before sales drop more and the company files bankruptcy.

Sales may not drop, in fact they may increase, if prices fall lower than wages.

Then everyone will get the minimum and no raises. Or they'll move to another country.

No, the working poor will be lifted out of poverty, but the middle and upper class will still earn more than them.

And middle class won't get raises because of UBI, for none of them will be tempted to quit and go on UBI.

And UBI only raises the wages of the working class if they sometimes make good on their threat to quit their job, but if too many of them do, the economy may collapse as a result.

Gloominary
Philosopher

Posts: 1300
Joined: Sun Feb 05, 2017 5:58 am
Location: Dislocated

@Serendipper

Nope. I've been through the numbers on this. Raise taxes on the top, cut taxes on the middle, institute negative tax on the bottom. Most people are better off than before.

But the point I really want to highlight here is that even though my plan involves a taxcut for any class you could ever aspire to inhabit, and raise your wages, and increase the health and education of society,

My plan does all that, without having to take care of 10s of 1000000s of lazy people.

You will make your own life harder just to make the poor suffer.

I don't want to make my life harder by taking care of lazy people.

Sure, but who shaped the environment to specifically favor white people? Who said, "We need to rally together to shape our environment to favor the white humanoids. This must be teleological because if left to chance, blacks might become smarter and we can't have that!" Like I said, no one gets any credit.

By and large, smart, strong people, many of whom happened to be European, but some of whom happened to be Asian, native American and African, shaped their environment to improve the lives of people, especially smart, strong people irrespective of race.

What progressives are doing is propping up the dumber, weaker members of the African race at the expense of the smarter, stronger members of the European race, which'll just help lead to the de-evolution of both races.

I can't imagine that's prolific.

This would've been unthinkable in 1989, or 1999.
This is just the beginning, anti-white sentiment is growing at an accelerating pace.

If you accept the premise that an individual can be held responsible for what some of the ancestors of his race did, or for what some (more like a few) members of his race do now, if you accept the premise that through some combination of ecological advantages and malevolence, white people have done far more harm to the world than good, and that we have an ancestral debt to pay because of it, it becomes clearer how we got to where we are now, as well as where we're headed.

They say until our collective debt to other races is paid, some of our rights should be revoked, the only question is, how many, and for how long?
Where do progressives draw the line?
When will we have made amends for enslaving and supposedly genociding millions of blacks, Jews, natives and others?
every year they draw it farther and farther ahead.
The answer has become clear, as far as they think they can get away with drawing it.

The only way to truly counteract this growing anti-white sentiment is to totally reject all of their premises, not merely argue over minor details.

Gloominary
Philosopher

Posts: 1300
Joined: Sun Feb 05, 2017 5:58 am
Location: Dislocated

@Serendipper

It's no trouble to distort christianity as people do it daily and have been for centuries. I can make the bible say anything you want. Remember Jonestown?

Christianity, whose founder extolled the virtues of charity, forgiveness and pacifism, has also inspired a lot of good in the world.
It's easier to use figures like Darwin, Nietzsche, Odin and Thor to commit atrocities than to use Jesus, or the Buddha or Lao Tzu for that matter.

He said those latter things near his death. Most of his life, like me, was spent as a Christian.

No he said them on and off all throughout his reign.

How come he never stopped paying the church tax?

Religious expediency, opportunism.

I've only been out of Christianity maybe a year or two. Maybe historians will argue whether or not I was a Christian. If they do, then they're both right.

He wrote a book before he rose to power, without knowing that he would rise to power, and in that book he said he was a Christian. I wrote a post in the past saying I was a Christian and at the time I was. Same with Hitler.

But if we discovered in your PMs with close confidants, you were telling them you're still a Christian and only feigning atheism, expediently exploiting it for a Christian cause, and furthermore we could see evidence of this opportunistic exploitation in your deeds, we would know your atheism is a ruse.

What's the difference?

Reminds me of the question: Do you have more faith in god or science. I thought the question should be: Do you have more faith in faith or science? Faith has two meanings. I have more confidence in science than faith.

exactly, there is no practical difference, they're both equally deluded in different ways.

No, authoritarianism is controlling the population based on the opinion of the elites. P is controlled by E.
Democracy elects representatives to control the population based on the opinions of the population. P is controlled by P.

E is the authoritarian. Authoritarianism is top-down. Democracy is bottom-up.

For me, while democratic authoritarianism is preferabe to dictatorial or plutocratic, it's still authoritarianism, it's still coercive (tho I also believe coercion can occasionally be justified).

I bitched to dad that hillbilly republicans want to tax tv now. He said NY democrats tax soda. I said there's a difference: the dems tax unhealthy things to discourage their use and fund education; the right taxes innocent things to be fair to corporations. One is noble (though misguided) and the other is malicious. He hasn't responded yet and is probably has his head in a hole.

Firstly, those aren't real American conservatives, they're corporatists, conservatives in America are free market.

Secondly, hippie democrats want you to pay for other peoples drug addiction, sex change and laziness.

Thirdly, they want to impose carbon taxes, and while more carbon may be unhealthy for the planet (most climatologists say it is), most people are just trying to get from point A to point B, from home to work, school and the grocery store.
Why punish them?
Carbon taxes are something only the elite like Al Gore, who fly all around the world should pay.

The right is authoritarian. The left is not. P cannot be authoritarian to itself. Only E can be authoritarian: the church, fascists, communist dictators, corporations, etc.

The majority can exercise authority over minorities and individuals, or its present self over its future self.

Also, the deep state can dupe the majority into tyrannizing itself.

"Helpful" here having the meaning of assisting the slave system. If you're a good little minion, we'll let you live. If you protest servitude, you're a disease to be eradicated. You're definitely WAY on the right next to Hitler and Stalin.

For what?
For not wanting UBI?
For not wanting to support the lazy?
When it comes to the economy, I'm mixed, I'm socialist on some things (education, healthcare, minimum wage), free market on some things, and corporatist on none.
When it comes to social issues, I'm libertarian.
And I'm in favor of more direct democracy, not less.

Any jew who didn't believe he was their king (god) and still clung to the Law of Moses. Hmm.. that sounds familiar.

Jesus was a pacifist who believed it was God's right alone to distribute spiritual justice, not man's, not even Christian men's (tho man could still distribute secular justice, hence the partial separation of church and state in late antiquity and the middle ages, and the full separation in modernity).

'My kingdom is not of this world, or my children would fight'.

And Jesus chastised all people who believed they could earn salvation (he even warned of fake Christians), not just Jews who wouldn't convert.

No, he was more like you who hates the poor and: neutered them, enslaved them, and killed them. The only difference in you two is that he actually did it and you wish you could.

I am poor, and I want to increase our wages and what welfare pays for people who genuinely need it, as well as reduce the workweek.

They may care marginally more, but are far less equipped to raise a child.

Leaving kids in the hands of well-intentioned idiots only breeds more idiots (myself the fortunate exception). How many people are able to escape their childhood indoctrinations such that they can truly "choose this day whom ye shall serve"? I probably align closer with Hitler on this who recognized that parents have no clue how to raise a kid. Spreading legs in the back of a Camaro does not qualify one to be a mother.

No parents care far more about their own children, and are far more equipped to raise them as they share their genes.
Sounds like you have no respect for ordinary men and women and their capabilities.
In that case, why have democracy at all, if people can't even look after their own kids?

So you want to abduct peoples kids and institutionalize them, and yet you have the gall to accuse me of being on the far right with Hitler and Stalin?
You're the elitist, not me.

Gloominary
Philosopher

Posts: 1300
Joined: Sun Feb 05, 2017 5:58 am
Location: Dislocated

Gloominary wrote:@Serendipper

What evidence do you have to support the assertion that servitude cannot be eliminated? What? Because machines are making so much more work to do?

I think you're exaggerating how productive we've become.
A modern farmer feeds 100-150 people, whereas a medieval farmer fed himself, his family and maybe several others, but the medieval farmer and his wife made their own ceramics, clothes, built their own house and so on, they took care of almost all of their own needs, whereas the modern farmer is totally reliant on others.
While I agree modern technology has made us more productive, It's not so much as we're that much more productive, as we're that much more interdependent.

Technological progression doesn't justify having to do exponentially more work as time goes on. And probably the only reason a farmer today can only feed 150 people is capitalism. If humanity eliminated money completely and simply focused on production of resources, then 1 farmer could feed the planet.

When machines have made us so productive, a man can not only use them to feed, clothe and shelter himself without relying on other men, but feed, clothe and shelter 100s or 1000s of others, well, at that point we won't even need society anymore, it'll be optional, because we can use machines to take care of all our needs just by pulling a lever and pressing a few buttons, but we're lightyears away from that.

Nah it could be done now, but we need the people who say it can't to die off. They are the only ones holding humanity back and they can't be reasoned with, so funeral by funeral we progress. A good flu pandemic would do wonders for humanity as it would probably kill disproportionately more old dogmatists while leaving the young green shoots to thrive.

That by the year 3000 we will be working 24 hrs a day because of such scarcity? Pft.

Many scientists are predicting an ecological collapse before the end of this century, because we've become too reliant on globalization and technology.
Many are telling us it's not enough to make our technologies greener, because making them more efficient just means we'll produce even more with them.
They're telling us we have to localize our economies, that we don't need to get fruits and vegetables from China and India, it's absurd, and that if we don't, we'll collapse back into the dark ages, where we'll have to work 12-16 hours a day.

What scientists? They don't seem too bright to me.

But you know what, again I think our productivity has been greatly exaggerated.
Many native American tribes were able to take care of their needs just by laboring 4-5 hours a day, the early European migrants regarded them as lazy by their standards, so maybe getting rid of globalization and technology will make our lives more leisurely after all.

Well, they didn't have much to do and they had a lot of people to do it. Now we've made all sorts of chores to do, like updating google perpetually, as if that were imperative. 1000s of jobs could be eliminated by simply making the tax code less complex. Most of the work done in the world is just digging a hole and refilling it... and it's because people exist who demand other people suffer for money.

I'd prefer the gov seize google, fire everyone, and preserve its current form and function forever and ever. Maybe retain one guy who can fix what breaks. All of silicon valley can go on permanent vacation. All the bankers can be fired as well. We could do this right now, today, with no robots. Millions would be jobless and nothing would change, except that millions would be jobless and would require handouts.

Friedman visited one of those statist countries back in the 70s and said "Why not replace all those shoveling workers with a machine?" The reply was, "Well, we're not really trying to accomplish anything but to provide jobs." Friedman replied, "In that case, why not give them spoons to shovel with?"

The point of jobs is not to provide jobs, but to do a job. Once the job is done, it's done. Everyone can go home now. We don't have to work just because you say so because we need some justification for our handouts. 90% of the jobs done are just digging holes and filling them in so that people can suffer for money. That's what it's all about.

I agree some jobs are meaningless, but it's nowhere near as many as you're suggesting, it's probably more like a 3rd of jobs are meaningless, a 3rd make stuff that makes people happier, but isn't needed, and a 3rd makes stuff that's needed.

I bet it's closer to 70-90% of jobs that are irrelevant. Fire all insurance agents. If you want insurance, go online and apply; it's automated. All bankers can be fired. If you want a loan, go online and apply; it's automated. Cut the police force in half; we don't need cops handing out seatbelt tickets and cameras can issue speeding violations in the mail. I bet I could whittle the workforce down to 10% of what it is now and not change anything, except that those people would need handouts. A few smart guys putting their heads together + robots + about 1 year and we'd have the workforce down to 1% of what it was.

How are you going to do that? "Let's say"? That's dictation. You cannot dictate wages higher. The only way to raise wages is to increase welfare. Give people more options so the corps have to compel them to work.

In Canada, we're increasing the federal min wage from about 10 dollars to 15.
Well, I say just increase it from 15 to 20, or 30, and adjust for inflation annually, so the working class can either support their families themselves, without relying on government, or save some money, or work part time and live a more leisurely life.
Or go to college or university without having to borrow money or work full time.
Or entrepreneur.

UBI has never before been tried on a large scale, it's something radical and experimental, whereas just increasing minimum wage is something we already do, just increase it more.

If you handout money for free, then you won't need to bother with min wage laws because corps will have to pay ungodly wages just to get people to work. You could control everything by the amount of the UBI. A computer could do it. Hell, Friedman said that in the 70s: a computer could control the money supply and run the whole show.

I've asked oodles of people if they would quit their job if the gov sent $10k per year whether they work or not. Only one woman said yes because that's more than she gets now and would rather stay home with her kids. Everyone else would work and get the UBI. Inaction speaks louder than words. I know several people who're on disability for depression, and while these people are depressed at times, they admitted to me that they could work full time if they had to, they'd just rather not. Part of their depression probably stems from low self-esteem, from feeling useless, lack of exercise, poor diet, drug abuse, these people all have terrible life styles. They need to get their shit together and go out there and contribute. I suspect 10s of millions of Americans will abuse UBI if it should ever become option, to the point where the economy may collapse. People are depressed due to the capitalist system (and being so far north doesn't help their vitamin D status). A guy who used to work for me got SSI while he was working, but I had to get him out of bed and wait for him to shit before we could go to work. He's just mentally incapable of supporting himself and if left to himself, he peddles drugs and his wife works 2 jobs in addition to the SSI. Some people just can't do it and they're a victim of the system. We can't fix those people, but we can fix the system to prevent more of those types from forming. I mean, he'd rather drop a bowling ball on his toe so he could be prescribed more opiates to sell than to get a job. A job is too much work, requires too much discipline, doesn't pay enough, and the reward is too slow. Much easier to spill hot grease on his arm. His daughter and his whole family are pillheads because they have no hope of anything and are slowly committing suicide to escape this fucked up system.$10/hr isn't enough. $15 isn't enough.$30? Ok maybe they would stop the pills and have hope of some type of life worth living. I'd rather suck a tailpipe than prostitute myself for \$10/hr.

As for single moms, while I have empathy for widows and women fleeing deadbeats and physical and mental abuse (as I have empathy for men fleeing such conditions), most single moms are selfish, spoiled rotten and just want to raise their children their way (i.e. 0 discipline/respect), while relying on the state, alimony and child support from the father, meanwhile they gold dig, stay home, stuff their faces and watch reruns of Orpah and other daytime talk shows (i.e. misandrist propaganda).
And the stepdads almost invariably treat the kids like shit, but they'll put up with it to multiply the number of men they can leach off of.
The vast majority of single moms are a plague, a scourge on society.
Unnecessary single motherhood is child abuse.
We need to get rid of no fault divorce to encourage families to stay together.

Deserve has nothing to do with it. We cannot allow kids to be raised in squalor. Period. If we do, then we're just making more problems that can't be fixed.

Prices can only fall because people do not have enough money to spend. Well,,, competition and automation also lowers prices, but this wouldn't happen in response to elimination of welfare. In response to no welfare, demand would fall off a cliff and prices would follow. Wages would then follow prices down the abyss and who can tell which would be lower.

So it could be good, could be bad, could be neither, so you don't have a point.

It could be that you have reading difficulty. Wages and prices WILL certainly, without a doubt, be in the abyss. But, I cannot tell which will be FARTHER in the abyss.

If you jumped into a cauldron of molten steel, I can't tell if your left or right leg would be hotter. Since I can't tell that, you decide jumping into the magma might be a good idea.

Companies usually fire people when sales start to drop. Then their stock shoots up because of the elimination of employees. The insiders sell out before sales drop more and the company files bankruptcy.

Sales may not drop, in fact they may increase, if prices fall lower than wages.

The reason prices are falling is because nobody has money, so how could that ever be construed as a good thing?

What we want to see is prices rising and why it's the mandate of the fed to keep prices rising at 2% forever. We never ever want to see prices fall because it can only mean people do not have any money. (Unless of course the falling prices are coming by way of competition and automation).

Then everyone will get the minimum and no raises. Or they'll move to another country.

No, the working poor will be lifted out of poverty, but the middle and upper class will still earn more than them.

And middle class won't get raises because of UBI, for none of them will be tempted to quit and go on UBI.

And UBI only raises the wages of the working class if they sometimes make good on their threat to quit their job, but if too many of them do, the economy may collapse as a result.

It's mechanically impossible for the economy to collapse if the poor have money. There is absolutely no way for it to happen. Economic collapse is the state in which the poor are broke.
Serendipper
Philosopher

Posts: 1747
Joined: Sun Aug 13, 2017 7:30 pm

Gloominary wrote:@Serendipper

Nope. I've been through the numbers on this. Raise taxes on the top, cut taxes on the middle, institute negative tax on the bottom. Most people are better off than before.

But the point I really want to highlight here is that even though my plan involves a taxcut for any class you could ever aspire to inhabit, and raise your wages, and increase the health and education of society,

My plan does all that, without having to take care of 10s of 1000000s of lazy people.

The only way to achieve lower taxes for yourself + higher wages + healthy and smart society is to take from the rich to give to the poor. If your plan doesn't do that, then your plan cannot achieve that; the mechanics simply are not there (ie it's mechanically impossible like a square circle).

You will make your own life harder just to make the poor suffer.

I don't want to make my life harder by taking care of lazy people.

"lazy people" here has the meaning of people who do not want to be slaves of the rich.

So you said "I don't want to make my life harder by freeing slaves."

But that still is not correct because freeing slaves would make your life easier.

So, you want to make your life harder by enslaving people.

If there is such a thing as evil, that is it.

Sure, but who shaped the environment to specifically favor white people? Who said, "We need to rally together to shape our environment to favor the white humanoids. This must be teleological because if left to chance, blacks might become smarter and we can't have that!" Like I said, no one gets any credit.

By and large, smart, strong people, many of whom happened to be European, but some of whom happened to be Asian, native American and African, shaped their environment to improve the lives of people, especially smart, strong people irrespective of race.

What progressives are doing is propping up the dumber, weaker members of the African race at the expense of the smarter, stronger members of the European race, which'll just help lead to the de-evolution of both races.

I disagree, but I'm tired of arguing with a recording.

Still not prolific. I don't know why they can't understand inclusiveness doesn't mean segregation.

This would've been unthinkable in 1989, or 1999.
This is just the beginning, anti-white sentiment is growing at an accelerating pace.

Well, it's the fault of the whites for being arrogant in the first place. As I said, I'm happy to see them go. Not sure what I'm getting into, but seeing the decline is recompense. If whites were humble, I'd take their side, but I can't sympathize with the arrogant.

If you accept the premise that an individual can be held responsible for what some of the ancestors of his race did, or for what some (more like a few) members of his race do now, if you accept the premise that through some combination of ecological advantages and malevolence, white people have done far more harm to the world than good, and that we have an ancestral debt to pay because of it, it becomes clearer how we got to where we are now, as well as where we're headed.

It has nothing to do with slavery, but being boneheaded. All boneheads need to go extinct, regardless of color.

They say until our collective debt to other races is paid, some of our rights should be revoked, the only question is, how many, and for how long?
Where do progressives draw the line?
When will we have made amends for enslaving and supposedly genociding millions of blacks, Jews, natives and others?
every year they draw it farther and farther ahead.
The answer has become clear, as far as they think they can get away with drawing it.

That's a red herring. It's not about prior slavery; it's about being a jerk right now.

The only way to truly counteract this growing anti-white sentiment is to totally reject all of their premises, not merely argue over minor details.

There is no way to counteract it because arrogant narcissists cannot change. Extinction is the only way forward, funeral by funeral.

The vikings died of their own arrogance leaving the Inuit to thrive in their wake. Whites have the propensity to beat their chests as they march to oblivion.

Whites (ie conservatives who are exclusively white) could prevent their fate by immediately taking care of the poor through min wage and ubi, ending the war on drugs, ending cash bail, and essentially taking up the liberal line, but they won't... not a chance, because they relish the suffering of the poor... it's dear to their hearts and gives meaning to their lives, so extinction is their future and I'm cheering their demise as a noble act.
Serendipper
Philosopher

Posts: 1747
Joined: Sun Aug 13, 2017 7:30 pm

Previous