Universal Basic Income is not Socialism

[Lost in Translation]

4 minutes ago, Aetherous said:

This is the major problem with my kind of perspective on economics ("demand side")...more money in the markets causes inflation. But I think if UBI were simply adjusted for inflation, it could work and inflation wouldn't have a bad effect.

 

Think about it this way. Imagine that own a restaurant. You sell food for $20/plate. The government comes along and decides that food is a basic right and they give everyone a $500/month stipend to spend on food. At first everyone is happy. People come into your restaurant more often. Then you realize that people have more money to spend on food so you raise your prices to $25/plate. 

 

How does this help anyone, especially if everyone in the food industry does that same?

 

This is exactly what happens in real life. Look at how the cost of college tuition has increased since the implementation of government guaranteed student loans.

[Marblehead]

13 minutes ago, Aetherous said:

What if those jobs suddenly became fully automated?

Who is going to build the machines?

Whos is going to install the machines?

Who is going to program the machines?

Who is going to monitor the machines?

Who is going to maintain the machines?

Who is going to repair the machines?

 

Where are the raw materials coming from in order to produce the needed products?

 

And the list goes on.

 

Some people will have to do the work.  And then the government takes their earnings, bleed off 50% to keep the government functioning and then give the worker the same amount of goods that they give to the people who didn't do a stitch of work.

 

I don't think so.

 

 

[Aetherous]

Just now, Lost in Translation said:

Then you realize that people have more money to spend on food so you raise your prices to $25/plate. 

 

Yes, this is the primary argument against (my version of) demand-side economics...that businesses will do this for one reason or another, so implementing any demand increasing policies is seen as disastrous.

 

Just now, Lost in Translation said:

How does this help anyone, especially if everyone in the food industry does that same?

If the UBI of all citizens increases in response to the cost of living, does it matter whether the price is $0.50 for a plate of food or $500? That's just a number. In the past, 50 cents for a meal was normal. Today it's around $10 for a meal being normal in most areas.
 

What matters is: can most people in the society afford it? With UBI increasing in response to inflation, they could.

 

[Aetherous]

8 minutes ago, Marblehead said:

Some people will have to do the work. 

 

Definitely.

[Marblehead]

4 minutes ago, Aetherous said:

 

Definitely.

So do you think it is fair that the government takes from those who did the work, took 50% of the resources for operating the government, then distribute the remainder to everyone else equally without regard to whether or not they did anything to support the system?

 

[Lost in Translation]

4 minutes ago, Aetherous said:

What matters is: can most people in the society afford it? With UBI increasing in response to inflation, they could.

 

Then expect the UBI to increase continuously and the cost of food to follow suite. Eventually someone will ask why food is so expensive when it used to be so affordable. Politicians will lambaste the food industry. Regulations will be imposed. People will gnash their teeth and pull their hair. Back in the day people helped each other. The government stayed out of it. 

[rene]

5 minutes ago, Aetherous said:

 

Yes, this is the primary argument against (my version of) demand-side economics...that businesses will do this for one reason or another, so implementing any demand increasing policies is seen as disastrous.

 

If the UBI of all citizens increases in response to the cost of living, does it matter whether the price is $0.50 for a plate of food or $500? That's just a number. In the past, 50 cents for a meal was normal. Today it's around $10 for a meal being normal in most areas.
 

What matters is: can most people in the society afford it? With UBI increasing in response to inflation, they could.

 

 

I bet it matters to the janitor - and everyone that is NOT on UBI.

 

Or are you proposing that we ALL are paid for doing nothing?

 

 

[rene]

2 minutes ago, Marblehead said:

So do you think it is fair that the government takes from those who did the work, took 50% of the resources for operating the government, then distribute the remainder to everyone else equally without regard to whether or not they did anything to support the system?

 

That sounds more like communism than socialism..to me.

[Aetherous]

4 minutes ago, Marblehead said:

So do you think it is fair that the government takes from those who did the work, took 50% of the resources for operating the government, then distribute the remainder to everyone else equally without regard to whether or not they did anything to support the system?

 

If you look back, you'll see I'm not saying anything about taking money from people who work.

[Marblehead]

2 minutes ago, rene said:

That sounds more like communism than socialism..to me.

Yes, all we need do is add that government takes ownership of all production assets and we have communism.

 

[Aetherous]

4 minutes ago, Lost in Translation said:

Then expect the UBI to increase continuously and the cost of food to follow suite. Eventually someone will ask why food is so expensive when it used to be so affordable.

 

I'm not sure we're understanding each other. If the UBI increased with cost of living, the food would still be just as affordable. Just like how meals used to cost 50 cents, and today they cost $10. We can still afford the food easily.

[rene]

33 minutes ago, rene said:

 

Exactly where do you think the money for UBI is going to come from - if not taxpayers pockets?

 

26 minutes ago, Aetherous said:

 

Automation that consumers find to be valuable.

 

4 minutes ago, Aetherous said:

 

If you look back, you'll see I'm not saying anything about taking money from people who work.

 

Yes, you are. People who work pay taxes on their income.

IF UBI is gov funded - then worker's monies are used for that.

IF UBI comes from private sources - worker's (non-UBI) monies pay for increased prices.

You still havent said where the money comes from.

(Your 'automated' response applies to businesses - who raise prices to cover their costs)

Edited July 19, 2018 by rene

[Lost in Translation]

Just now, Aetherous said:

 

I'm not sure we're understanding each other. If the UBI increased with cost of living, the food would still be just as affordable. Just like how meals used to cost 50 cents, and today they cost $10. We can still afford the food easily.

 

I understand you. My point is that when the government gives people money, the cost of goods and services go up. The more money the government gives, the more the costs rise.

 

The best way to level the economic playing field is for the government to get out of the way and let the free market competition take over.

[rene]

Just now, Lost in Translation said:

 

I understand you. My point is that when the government gives people money, the cost of goods and services go up. The more money the government gives, the more the costs rise.

 

The best way to level the economic playing field is for the government to get out of the way and let the free market competition take over.

Yeah..good luck with that.

[Marblehead]

2 minutes ago, Aetherous said:

 

If you look back, you'll see I'm not saying anything about taking money from people who work.

I agree, you didn't.  However, where else is the government going to get the resources to give to all these people?

 

Sure, the government can continue to borrow the money but eventually it will be so far in debt that it will no longer have good credit and will no longer be able to borrow money and the entire system collapses.

 

Present US national debt:  21 trillion dollars.  

 

 

[joeblast]

1 minute ago, Marblehead said:

Present US national debt:  21 trillion dollars. 

I'd be curious to see what that number drops to when all of the odious illegitimate debts "owed" to "federal""reserve""banks" are eliminated from the "balance" "sheet"

[Aetherous]

3 minutes ago, rene said:

You still havent said where the money comes from.

Well, I'm hoping someone who actually knows what they're talking about on this issue will jump in here.  I've read just a few articles on it and only think the idea has potential. I posted this topic mostly to learn more about it.

I've attempted to show how it's possible that UBI won't come from workers, because money doesn't simply come from work, and because money does exist outside of worker's pockets. I believe there are many potential ways it could work, which wouldn't mess with taxpayers at all, nor implement socialism or communism.

I actually think UBI would benefit a mostly free market.

[Marblehead]

5 minutes ago, joeblast said:

I'd be curious to see what that number drops to when all of the odious illegitimate debts "owed" to "federal""reserve""banks" are eliminated from the "balance" "sheet"

You looking for truth disclosure?  Good luck with that one.

 

[Aetherous]

10 minutes ago, Lost in Translation said:

My point is that when the government gives people money, the cost of goods and services go up. The more money the government gives, the more the costs rise.

 

Does it matter, so long as affordability doesn't change? Are we complaining today that meals no longer cost 50 cents?

 

10 minutes ago, Lost in Translation said:

The best way to level the economic playing field is for the government to get out of the way and let the free market competition take over.

 

You don't think we've seen the wealth gap increase, and witnessed a disappearing middle class, due to this already taking place?

[rene]

1 minute ago, Aetherous said:

...
I've attempted to show how it's possible that UBI won't come from workers, because money doesn't simply come from work, and because money does exist outside of worker's pockets. ...

 

Try telling that to the IRS auditor when they ask why you're not paying your taxes.

 

 

[Lost in Translation]

Just now, Marblehead said:

Present US national debt:  21 trillion dollars.  

 

Currently there are 155.5 million workers in the US as of July 2018 (1). Assuming that the interest on the $ 21 trillion debt is only 3% we can calculate the monthly cost per American worker. The results are below.

 

National Debt	$21,000,000,000,000
Interest Rate	3.00%
Monthly Interest	$52,500,000,000
Working Americans	155,576,000
Monthly Share of Interest per Working American	$337

 

 

This means that, on average, $337 of your taxes goes to paying the interest on the debt. This does not include any principle markdown. Why in hell would we do this to ourselves? This is economic suicide! But, as I said before, money is too abstract for most people to understand and the government goes not produce chickens or beer.

 

http://www.dlt.ri.gov/lmi/laus/us/usadj.htm

 

[Marblehead]

1 minute ago, Aetherous said:

Well, I'm hoping someone who actually knows what they're talking about on this issue will jump in here.  I've read just a few articles on it and only think the idea has potential. I posted this topic mostly to learn more about it.

I've attempted to show how it's possible that UBI won't come from workers, because money doesn't simply come from work, and because money does exist outside of worker's pockets. I believe there are many potential ways it could work, which wouldn't mess with taxpayers at all, nor implement socialism or communism.

I actually think UBI would benefit a mostly free market.

Sure, I respect the thought that something like this could happen.  

 

I have no idea how it could unless you reduce the standard of living for all those above the poverty level by taking what they have honestly (or dishonestly) earned.

 

 

 

[joeblast]

11 minutes ago, Lost in Translation said:

 

Currently there are 155.5 million workers in the US as of July 2018 (1). Assuming that the interest on the $ 21 trillion debt is only 3% we can calculate the monthly cost per American worker. The results are below.

 

National Debt	$21,000,000,000,000
Interest Rate	3.00%
Monthly Interest	$52,500,000,000
Working Americans	155,576,000
Monthly Share of Interest per Working American	$337

 

 

This means that, on average, $337 of your taxes goes to paying the interest on the debt. This does not include any principle markdown. Why in hell would we do this to ourselves? This is economic suicide! But, as I said before, money is too abstract for most people to understand and the government goes not produce chickens or beer.

 

http://www.dlt.ri.gov/lmi/laus/us/usadj.htm

 

"we" didnt do this to ourselves,  Congress did this to the american people at the end of the civil war when the financiers strong armed them into giving away the farm.

 

and I could further clarify and say "Congress of the North" with North-appointed (read=London appointed) "representation" in the South.

 

The Acts of 1871 are not even PART of The Constitution For These United States of America....they are edits to the corporate bylaws called "The Constitution of the United States"....

Edited July 19, 2018 by joeblast

[thelerner]

2 hours ago, rene said:

 

I stand corrected. From that link:

A basic income is concerned with the distribution of income whereas socialism is a system of organizing the ownership, production and allocation of goods and services.

Socialism is defined as an economic system based on social ownership and operation of the means of producing wealth. This is a distinct concept from a basic income, which does not require social ownership of capital assets.

Usually people are thinking of European style Socialism, not old style Russian/Chinese Communism/Socialism

2 hours ago, rene said:

However it's structured, whatever it's called - it's still taking working people's money to give to someone who didn't have to work for it.

True, but that's what the social net does anyway, through subsidized housing, food stamps, medicare.  The U.S social net could use some intelligent updating.

 

The question is, could it be done cheaper as monetary expenditure, knocking out the above benefits, and could it be done with built in incentives to find work and get off it. 

<I assume no, but might be worth studying.   I don't think they'll be political will to give people $20 or 30,000 a year for doing nothing.  Yet I hear many homeless run up multiple times that in emergency room care per year. Sometimes looking at the whole picture, the whole system, leads to unlikely solutions. 

 

I prefer a more, teach a man to fish, kinda thing.  Like partially free 'counter college', ie where 17  to 24 year olds could do a work/study program to gain skills in jobs the country needs, building (roads, infrastructure), automotive, plumbing, programming  etc.,  dorm style rooms, cafeteria food.. etc.,  A kind of a 'merchant marines' for getting people skills and good jobs in the U.S.  Perhaps some of the costs defrayed by a percentage of income being taken out for 10 years, ie 3 or 5%. 

 

I could see diverting(or converting) some percentage of the military budget into this.  Because for a nation, true prosperity and protection is having a happy productive citizens.  and by converting, I mean that the military has expertise in teaching and cheap disciplined living.  Use that expertise, as a resource. 

 

 

 

 

 

Edited July 19, 2018 by thelerner

[Aetherous]

1 minute ago, Marblehead said:

I have no idea how it could unless you reduce the standard of living for all those above the poverty level by taking what they have honestly (or dishonestly) earned.

 

I hope some smart people are able to explore that in this thread. Some possibilities, which I don't fully understand, were in the first link that Earl Grey shared on page 1.

At least personally, I would never accept a UBI that is simply redistribution from the rich to the poor. The weak don't become strong by making the strong weak.