An update on Universal Basic Income (UBI)

[thinkdr]

One way, perhaps, to apply Ethics in practice is to initiate in a nation, state, or municipality, a form of Universal Basic Income - akin to what citizens of Alaska have with their trust fund.

Critics argue that after UBI is granted people would laze about, would give up exerting themselves on any worthwhile project, or exercising any skill; they all would stagnate. They would not be productive, would not contriute to the progress of the economy.

The factual evidence shows that this has not turned out to be the case. What has happened in on-the-ground actual UBI experiments is that people continue to work, but less at jobs they hate, and more in jobs and projects that they consider to be interesting.



The beauty of it is that over all productivity increases in the regions where the experiments have been tried. Do the research yourself and you will discover how it works out and why [b a Universal Basic Income is necessary[/b] - since automation and robotics are displacing many, many traditional jobs and vocations.
Check out these links, and learn:

http://basicincome.org/news/2017/11/rep ... onference/

http://basicincome.org/news/category/features/blogs/

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bdHOZCy ... e=youtu.be


Your views on these matters are most welcome!

[Silhouette]

I am absolutely in favour of the UBI, not just "because it sounds like a nice idea" but because it's increasingly becoming an economic necessity as thinkdr said.

One has to ask themselves the question: what is the purpose and motivation of creating better and better technologies?

Given the "mixed economy" model of the West and not some radical transformation that half the population consistently votes against, we are in an economic environment of being monetarily motivated to supply evermore innovative ways of meeting demands. But simply eating into the market share of already-established businesses, that might only provide a relatively basic version of what people want in some way or other, is not as lucrative as enhancing technologies to make the provision of goods and services even more efficient.

Enhancing technologies to improve the provision of goods and services is what the West does. The point it seems is to shirk the classical liberal self-regulating ideal of "perfect competition" and manufacture one's very own monopoly or at least oligopoly through product differentiation: "my product isn't just the same as all the others in the same market" - even if it takes psychological tricks to force this, through advertising a unique association with your product. You're rewarded for abusing the system in your favour, and better technology can give actual substance to claims of "a better product".



That's the motivation - it's built into our economic model. But what is the purpose? Where is it headed?

Obviously technology enhances what mere people can do on their own, it removes the necessity for people to perform a certain aspect of a required role. Continually. Obviously again, the tendency is towards the removal of the whole role altogether.
So far, the human element in jobs has been sustained by there still being room for them to augment the role in most cases. The human requirement, when not improving technology, is ever shrunk to more and more menial tasks of smaller and smaller consequence. Some roles are even on the verge of being taken over completely, such as with drivers. This one will cause a sudden huge squeeze of people into an already squeezed job market of increasingly pointless roles, and might be the turning point.

We create technologies in order to remove the need for humans to work.

And yet the economic necessity is still stuck in "you have to have a job". A job for a job's sake, to uphold the individualist ideal of self-sustenance. It's basically a modern-day sin to be unemployed, because it is perceived that government "steals" from the employed through taxation in order to provide for the unemployed. This is actually a form of the "fundamental attribution error" where one tends to attribute one's (e.g. financial) success far more in favour of their own actions than to those of others and to one's environment. It's actually the economy as a whole that provides the platform for you to become rich, taxation is more like a fee for being privileged enough to take part. The more you benefit from it, the more you are in debt to it. I find the lack of gratitude of the Libertarian sort to be particularly disgraceful in this regard. There isn't even any appreciation for the fact that provision for the unemployed goes straight back into businesses when it is spent, paying for the rich once more. It's just channeled temporarily through other human beings first before it goes back to them. And what are we supposed to do? Let the incapable die off by denying them any income? We are more than easily able to maintain a certain level of civilisation.

And that point is an important one. Simply gaining a better understanding of economics will enable nay-sayers to see how not only is UBI necessary but there is in fact no moral or economic problem in bringing it about.

The final point may be a way off: when all work is replaced by technology. Then everyone will be unemployed. There won't even be income to tax at this point, you may simply use the technologies at your disposal to get what you want. You're not going to be paying machines to do what they are programmed to do, so you need no income to pay anybody with.

But how are we going to evolve to this point economically?
1) The ratio of unemployed to employed is going to steadily increase simply as a matter of course. We just let our current economy do what it does.
2) These increasing numbers of unemployed are going to need income for as long as there are people who want to be paid to provide a product or service.
3) The money can only come from where it currently is: the employed. Therefore it must be diverted by government force unless the employed can learn to give in accordance with what our civilisation can reasonably afford.
4) The money supply is going to steadily decrease, along with prices (both tending to zero) so comparative richness is going to decrease.

The only quarrel left will be how much government is allowed to take from the employed to give to the redundant - how much is "reasonable" to maintain what level of civilisation for the unemployed class (how much of a human being are they)?

On a light note, I don't even want everyone to work - dealing with stupid employed people is annoying. Let just the best and most motivated work. There is no need for the incapable and unwilling to work, even now in my opinion.

[WendyDarling]

We create technologies in order to remove the need for humans to work.

Do we need technology to replace our efficiency when we are on a planet with finite resources? Do we need technology to excavate the resources to its end more quickly? To end the ability for human survival in essence more quickly?

Technology is not our road to salvation, it's more our road to annihilation at break neck speeds. I don't even understand the concept of UBI that doesn't point to some super evil culling of the population due to technology heading us towards oblivion on a planet that can no longer sustain unproductive life forms such as humans who only use and waste unsustainably. UBI may be what the communist global government gives folks as they cull the populations quietly using advanced medical technology.

There is no need for the incapable and unwilling to work...

...or live.

Eugenics, which has taken to the underground, will resurface and be interwoven with how civilization judges human life forms as worthy of their existence, worthy of what's left of the resources, which each life will have to prove, have to contribute to what society (or a few old men) deem vital.

If UBI happens, it will be short lived, and those who accept it may be targeted as unfit, a waste of resources.

There is no UBI utopia on a planet of finite resources.

Critics argue that after UBI is granted people would laze about, would give up exerting themselves on any worthwhile project, or exercising any skill; they all would stagnate. They would not be productive, would not contriute to the progress of the economy.

The factual evidence shows that this has not turned out to be the case. What has happened in on-the-ground actual UBI experiments is that people continue to work, but less at jobs they hate, and more in jobs and projects that they consider to be interesting.

Could this continued striving be due to strong ingrained work ethics (be productive or look bad) pervasive still the rest of the world over? Once ambition fizzles without any status rewards, why would folks continue to work? Even if their work becomes more play inspired these projects that interest them, why would they bother rather than vacationing with their families and building memories at home?

[Silhouette]

So... finite resources.

The answer is quite obviously sustainable energy resources and other practices?

The only reasons we still use non-renewable energy are that they are embedded so strongly in our infrastructures, they have been around for longer so are efficient and prolific, they are still making the people in power rich so they won't want to change - e.g. the supply of limited resources is much easier to regulate in your favour, and our economy rewards short-sighted and desperate approaches to competition such that reckless measures are resorted to.

This all unravels once you consider those inevitable consequences that I numbered. With technology replacing the human element in the workplace, any human irresponsibility will be phased out, renewable energy technology will catch up with non-renewable, and changes to infrastructure will follow to accommodate this. Unsustainability will be replaced by sustainability whether or not the former has a chance to run out.

It anything UBI will enable us to find a balance without our finite resources.



There is no need for the incapable and unwilling to live?! Some super evil culling of the population by some communist global government?!

Forgive me for saying this sounds absolutely hysterical and unfounded. I don't even know where to start with this one it's so removed from reality - maybe it's the exciting sensationalism of conspiracy-type media, but in reality the vast majority aren't comfortable with the actual killing of real people and won't let it happen, as history has proven - and with communication and availability of news and information like we have today, it's going to be even harder to get genocide on familiar territory off the ground.

For one, as soon as religion has finally died out enough we're much more likely to transition into genetic modification to prevent more unwilling and incapables from entering the world, and more prominently, as technology replaces all need for humans to work the unemployed will be everyone. What do you think we'll all be killed off as each and everyone person becomes redundant until none of us are left?!

Some level-headed factual and logical explanation is going to be needed on your part for any your fears to be remotely feasible.

Critics argue that after UBI is granted people would laze about, would give up exerting themselves on any worthwhile project, or exercising any skill; they all would stagnate. They would not be productive, would not contriute to the progress of the economy.

The factual evidence shows that this has not turned out to be the case. What has happened in on-the-ground actual UBI experiments is that people continue to work, but less at jobs they hate, and more in jobs and projects that they consider to be interesting.

Everyone begins life motivated, all kids have energy, creativity and engage in activity. That's where ambition comes from - it only fizzles out when restrictions like lack of money and opportunity wear you down. You're pressured to leave behind work that you enjoy and are passionate about, to pursue "a proper job". People just return to what they thought they weren't supposed to do, but actually care about. The more necessary but undesirable stuff will be done by technology before anything else.

Again, your fears are unfounded.

[WendyDarling]

in reality the vast majority aren't comfortable with the actual killing of real people and won't let it happen, as history has proven - and with communication and availability of news and information like we have today, it's going to be even harder to get genocide on familiar territory off the ground.

Sorrily, the vast majority don't make the behind the scenes decisions made by governments that favor the more productive or wealthy over the less productive and poor. No one asks for permission to genocide segments of populations or even entire populations, the few in charge sign classified orders and its done with very few even knowing that its happening. Vaccines are an easy in to end people. People are dumb enough to let doctors inject them with whatever they are told is in the vaccines.

So... finite resources.

Is that statement a question of disbelief? How can sustainable energy resources recreate the entire food chain or the plants and minerals that sustain it?

Everyone begins life motivated, all kids have energy, creativity and engage in activity. That's where ambition comes from - it only fizzles out when restrictions like lack of money and opportunity wear you down. You're pressured to leave behind work that you enjoy and are passionate about, to pursue "a proper job". People just return to what they thought they weren't supposed to do, but actually care about. The more necessary but undesirable stuff will be done by technology before anything else.

Are adults supposed to behave as children...playing all the live long day?

[Silhouette]

Sorrily, the vast majority don't make the behind the scenes decisions made by governments that favor the more productive or wealthy over the less productive and poor. No one asks for permission to genocide segments of populations or even entire populations, the few in charge sign classified orders and its done with very few even knowing that its happening. Vaccines are an easy in to end people. People are dumb enough to let doctors inject them with whatever they are told is in the vaccines.

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...

So... finite resources.

Is that statement a question of disbelief? How can sustainable energy resources recreate the entire food chain or the plants and minerals that sustain it?

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.

[WendyDarling]

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.

[James S Saint]

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.

[Innovice]

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

[Silhouette]

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.

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.

[James S Saint]

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.

[WendyDarling]

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

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

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

Global Warming Is Heating Up the Deep Ocean http://time.com/4184898/global-warming-oceans-hot/

Pollution killing world's coral reefs https://www.reuters.com/article/us-mexi ... 1G20080930

Is sea level rising? Yes, sea level is rising at an increasing rate. https://oceanservice.noaa.gov/facts/sealevel.html

Neurosurgeon issues public challenge to vaccine zealots: Inject yourselves with all shots you say children should get!
https://www.naturalnews.com/035335_vacc ... ldren.html

Ecosystem destruction costing hundreds of billions a year https://www.theguardian.com/science/200 ... nservation

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!

[Only_Humean]

We create technologies in order to remove the need for humans to work.

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 final point may be a way off: when all work is replaced by technology. Then everyone will be unemployed. There won't even be income to tax at this point, you may simply use the technologies at your disposal to get what you want. You're not going to be paying machines to do what they are programmed to do, so you need no income to pay anybody with.

But how are we going to evolve to this point economically?
1) The ratio of unemployed to employed is going to steadily increase simply as a matter of course. We just let our current economy do what it does.
2) These increasing numbers of unemployed are going to need income for as long as there are people who want to be paid to provide a product or service.
3) The money can only come from where it currently is: the employed. Therefore it must be diverted by government force unless the employed can learn to give in accordance with what our civilisation can reasonably afford.
4) The money supply is going to steadily decrease, along with prices (both tending to zero) so comparative richness is going to decrease.

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.

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.

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.

[James S Saint]

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.

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???


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

[Only_Humean]

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???

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.

[Arminius]

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.

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.

[Arminius]

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.

Or what about an "iron horse" suit?

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

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

Global Warming Is Heating Up the Deep Ocean http://time.com/4184898/global-warming-oceans-hot/

Pollution killing world's coral reefs https://www.reuters.com/article/us-mexi ... 1G20080930

Is sea level rising? Yes, sea level is rising at an increasing rate. https://oceanservice.noaa.gov/facts/sealevel.html

Neurosurgeon issues public challenge to vaccine zealots: Inject yourselves with all shots you say children should get!
https://www.naturalnews.com/035335_vacc ... ldren.html

Ecosystem destruction costing hundreds of billions a year https://www.theguardian.com/science/200 ... nservation

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!

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.

[James S Saint]

What you have is this:

Natural Power Distribution Curve.png (2.8 KiB) Viewed 2379 times

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 (8.12 KiB) Viewed 2379 times

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.

[Only_Humean]

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.

[James S Saint]

Absolute Free Trade doesn't and can't exist, because money is a human convention governed by other human conventions.

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.

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.

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!"

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.

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??

The Economic Science Association (ESA) is a professional organization devoted to economics as an observational science, using controlled experiments to learn about economic behavior. The ESA welcomes participation by economists interested in the results of such experiments, as well as scholars in psychology, business, political science, and other related fields.

The Journal of the Economic Science Association (JESA) is dedicated to advancing theoretical, empirical, methodological and policy-relevant knowledge using experimental economic methods. JESA promotes research pioneering and advancing laboratory and field methods to address important economic questions that are difficult to examine using naturally occurring data. JESA is open to all areas of inquiry in economics and at the intersection of economics and other disciplines including but not limited to psychology, political science, statistics, finance, marketing, and organizational behavior.

2018 ESA Asia Pacific Meeting, Brisbane, Australia

The 2018 Asia Pacific ESA Meeting will be held at the Queensland University of Technology, Brisbane, Australia from Wednesday, February 7th to Friday, February 9th, 2018. The conference is jointly organised by the Queensland Behavioural Economics group and the QUT School of Economics and Finance.
Following the ESA conference, there is the opportunity to stay for another day and attend a regional meeting of the Society for Experimental Finance. Attendees of the ESA conference wishing to stay on can register for the SEF “add on" at a discounted rate.

The SEF conference fee is $190/$140/$50 for faculty and professionals/students/non-registered guests, which covers all lectures, welcome reception, conference dinner and catering during breaks.
After the ESA early registration cutoff (Dec 20, 2017) the conference fees will increase by $50 in all categories.

Get you tickets soon.

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.

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?

[Silhouette]

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

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

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.

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.

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.

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

I know right

[Arminius]

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 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.

[Only_Humean]

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.

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!"

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.

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.

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??

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.

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.

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"?

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.

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?

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.

[James S Saint]

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.

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!"

If you have physical evidence of energy being created in response to confidence in future energy,

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"?

or of matter accumulating at hyper-gravitational rates due to additional force generated by the existence of gravity and not mass

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.

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.

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.

Power laws are used to approximate wealth distributions: I'm not denying that.

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

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, 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).

[Arminius]

https://archive.is/P3srX/624cd34be8fa1a5784b43b9eb9714eb693a4616a.jpg

This is what I found amongst others:

1) W O R L D :

World Map of Wealth Distribution.

Reichtum_Weltkarte.jpg (63.83 KiB) Viewed 2250 times

2) U. S. A. :

POVERTY almost evrywhere IN THE USA

....



MAKE IT GREAT AGAIN?

1% of all US people has 40% of all the nation's wealth. And the poorest 80% of all US people have merely 7% of all the nation's wealth.


Watch the video Serendipper posted (especially 4:41–4:54):

Thought experiment: Is there anything that one human can do 400X better than another human? Can someone be 400X smarter? Even if the dumbest guy had an iq of 1, a 400 iq is off the chart. Can someone lift 400X more weight? 1000lb is the record bench press, so the weakest person would have to only bench 2.5lbs for a 400X differential. What could possibly justify someone making 400X more money than the AVERAGE person? Being 400X more sleazy I reckon.

According to your video the richest 20% of the US have more than 80% of all the US wealth, the richest 1% of the US have 40% all the US wealth, the poorest 80% of the US have more merely 7% of all the US wealth.

Maybe I will have to change my thoughts about the wealth inequality in the USA.

.... 2006:

The richest Finnish 20% have 35% of the Finnish income (GNP).
The poorest Finnish 80% have 65% of the Finnish income (GNP).
The richest German 20% have 40% of the German income (GNP).
The poorest German 80% have 60% of the German income (GNP).
The richest US 20% have 47% of the US income (GNP).
The poorest US 80% have 53% of the US income (GNP).
The richest Brazilian 20% have 65% of the Brazilian income (GNP).
The poorest Brazilian 80% have 35% of the Brazilian income (GNP).

Maybe that the richest Brazilian 20% have already 80% of the Brazilian income (GNP). So at last we will possibly see the following scenario in the world: 20% of all humans have 80% of the global income. So 80% of all humans have merely 20% of the global income. (Cp. Pareto distribution.) ....