30 YEAR OLD JEW SOLVES ALL ECONOMIC PROBLEMS
http://www.techinsider.io/sam-altman-praises-basic-income-on-freakonomics-podcast-2016-4
> Basic Income would make our economy thrive even if 90% of people smoked weed all day
>>71603705
>trust me
>>71603705
LIES
disgusting propaganda
sickening people
![ac64407c7e9ca888938fc45c4b281161[1].png](https://i.imgur.com/yMBELHW.png "ac64407c7e9ca888938fc45c4b281161[1].png")
>>71603705
There is nothing wrong with a basic income goys
>>71603705
Just give us all the money and we will give it back as a basic income.
/pol/ is immune to both facts and benefiting society*
society = includes minorities
>>71604145
No you faggots will see basic income work in some scandinavian country with 9 million homogenous people with a trillion dollar oil savings fund and then act like it will work in America.
All socialism is a privilege for rich countries. Since every scandinavian is essentially a millionaire because of the oil funds. They get a privilege you never will
>>71604145
> I am very smart
>>71604310
so I will or will not be receiving effortless neetbux within a decade when millenials latch onto this idea?
>>71603705
I honestly don't see the problem. If people were allowed basic income people who didn't want to work wouldn't have to and people who do want to work are now more valuable in the job market, what exactly is the problem?
>>71604310
yeah, people with your argumentative style made the same claim with respect to universal health care, and that was incorrect. it works in canada (not homogenous). it works in united states, even when limited. likewise, once UBI is tested in canada it'll work, and if tried in the usa it'll work. why? the evidence suggests that it'll work. your failed arguments have no evidence in support of them, but stick to them dogmatically, and remain immune to facts. good day.
>>71604310
>some scandinavian country with 9 million homogenous people
The only Scandi country near 9 million is Sweden. It's not homogenous.
> Since every scandinavian is essentially a millionaire because of the oil funds.
The only Scandi country with oil money is Norway.
Jesus fucking Christ burger intelligence on full display.
>>71604417
you wont be receiving shit my friend. The neet bucks will be for the new majority and you will be providing those bucks
>>71603705
If other people are willing to voluntarily give their own resources to other people, I see no problem with it. Call me when that's actually what's being proposed.
>>71604651
Sweden is homogenous. You don't know shit about diversity, you will though.
>>71604310
yeah cause those people were smart enough to not let corporationes cuck their lands resources away from them for themselves
dumb shit
>>71604486
The problem is that people generally are not frugal and they will waste all of their basic income on stupid shit and still be broke and poor and demand more.
>>71604823
No you dumb shit. They are tiny Tiny nation states who actually have control over their governments unlike our retarded federalist system
>>71604823
>muh evil corporations
Oh fuck off
How you cucks can vilify corporations and at the same time suck government dick is beyond me
>>71603705
Just think of all those dumb poor people you could scam money off. This opens some opportunities
Yeah, basic income would solve a lot of hassle because it would greatly simplify the welfare system we currently have.
I don't see it working in America, though.
>>71604887
This. You too this in western Europe too. We essentially have a system were unemployed and poor people get free housing and money, but we still have homeless because they just spend all their money on drugs.
>>71604651
>it's not homogeneous
Yeah you wish
>>71605078
That's a good argument in theory but you know that government will manage to make it all bloated and fucked up with different basic incomes for minorities and married people and disabled etc
It would likely just be another layer of bureaucracy
I still don't get it. Can anyone kikesplain it to me?
>>71605257
Probably, they would never allow those poor immigrants to be paid less.
It would be a good idea if it actually was implemented as is, but you'd have to trick the leftists to vote for it first.
>>71605257
able bodied white men will never see a fucking dime. They will pay for it all and get nothing.
How many times does it need to happen. Who pays for your free college
>Able bodied german men
who pays for your health care
>Able bodied white german men
Who pays for disability and social security
>Able bodied white german men
>>71605260
DUDE FREE MONEY LMAO
>>71603705
>"And the American puritanical ideal that hard work for its own sake is valuable — period — and that you can't question that, I think that's just wrong."
>>71603705
>> Basic Income would make our economy thrive even if 90% of people smoked weed all day
>This is a functioning society
Why is it different from a nigger ghetto where everyone is on welfare and 90% of people smoke weed all day?
>Suddenly, brilliant people who don't have time to focus on their passions now would find themselves with the means to pursue their dreams.
Ahh yes I always knew that if only it wasn't for our repressive economic system then Bomqueesha and Tyrone would become astronauts
>>71603705
Milton Friedman thought basic income would work. But only with:
>strong border
He said we could implement it with such a large tide of illegal immigrants. And he said this back in the 70s
>it replaced all welfare
Basic income was the rreplacement for welfare, not supplemental
>it rose at a slower rate than inflation
This was to eventually render the basic income void, so that everyone was once again on equal footing and more free market shit.
Too bad they would never let it work like this.
>>71605260
You pay living money to everyone, and get rid of all current benefits Now people can pursue external goals. Now nobody needs to work for purely survival and are free to pursue external goals
>>71605575
He's right. The labor theory of value is central idea of communism.
>That's why Altman is so confident that 90% of people could sit around all day and do nothing and the US would still keep chugging along: Basic income is such an effective motivator that enough people will use their newfound free time to produce extraordinary innovations that make up for the laggards.
Who knew we had a bunch of Einsteins and Teslas flipping burgers and cleaning toilets?!?
I'm all aboard this train now
>>71603705
The entire point of basic income is the idea that automation will destroy the lower class who consume the very products that automation is supplying and therefore some way to keep them consuming must be applied.
>>71605678
Could not implement
Fuck
Prepare for inflation. Money only means something if it has value. If you give $15 or however many dollars for $0 worth of work, the money given will be worthless if 90% of people are all doing the same thing
>>71605688
that makes no sense
>But the beauty in that, which Altman hints at, is that there really won't be any laggards. Nine-tenths of the population won't suddenly sit around and get high, because the best evidence suggests a financial safety net actually encourages people to work harder
>>71605381
I'd rather not risk it.
>>71605431
I'm with you man.
It would be a good idea if we would get rid of all the other welfare and made basic income the exact same amount for everyone without any extras or special treatments.
It's like I'd prefer Cruz over Hillary but I'd still favor Trump the most.
Lesser of two evils etc, that's how I see basic income, but like I said it will never be done right.
the problem is 100% of people think they're in the 90% of people
>>71605856
It does if it completely replace welfare. IIRC the cost would be about the double of the current welfare system for some countries, but i have no source
>>71605920
buuuuuullshiiiiiiiiit
>>71605467
>>71605688
I really just wanted the opportunity to use kikesplain.
if it replaced all welfare I'm cool with it
>>71605260
He's proposing that everyone get paid for doing nothing which, according to him, would stimulate the economy by increasing purchasing power. It's an idea that has been proposed over and over again for the last hundred years by intellectual hacks with their heads up their own asses, and has always failed once real economists come out of the woodwork to assblast them.
>>71605257
its a poor argument because our country was not designed to handle a heavily buearocracy at the federal level. There's no oversight now, we can't shut down a single fucking buearocracy, we don't even know how many even exist, some speculate around 400, some say alot more.
if you want to try basic income in your county with a local regency controlling it and direct or representative oversight committees, fine, go for it, let us know how it works out for you.
the federal government can't even make a fucking website
>>71606004
Your tax dollars will be paying for it
How are we supposed to pay for this without a massive tax hike?
>>71605647
you do know more white people are on welfare, don't you
are the fucking kikes even trying anymore
>>71605958
how does it sustain resources from lower end jobs that nobody would want to do
>>71606032
what if it replaced a bunch of other bureaucracy
>>71606032
They can make a website it just costs a billion dollars
>>71605647
Because right now if someone is getting benefits they stand to lose them if they try to get a job/start a business/otherwise make any money for themselves. Basic income, on the other hand, is something everyone would get regardless of how little or how much income they have. It's paid for through taxes, naturally, so there would be a break even point above which the tax exceeds the basic income payment.
>>71605940
What is this phenomenon? it HAS to have a formal name.
>>71606069
You do know there are about 6 times as many whites in America as there are blacks, don't you?
>>71605940
I'm not a filthy plebian m8.
>>71606065
obviously tax dollars would pay for it, I'm saying what if we now took all money that went to medicare, social security, food stamps, housing, etc and just split it among all adult citizens, how much would each person get?
>>71606162
>they stand to lose them if they try to get a job/start a business/otherwise make any money for themselves.
>there would be a break even point above which the tax exceeds the basic income payment.
Those two statements say the same thing.
>>71606208
Was this supposed to say something that I didn't?
>>71605706
except its not for its own sake, its what backs our currency, its why we are in debt to our own central bank because we put up ourselves as collateral in 1945, its based on x taxes collected from a single person born. The more people, the more money that can be loaned to the federal government. what this guy is suggesting is to become full on slaves. if x person isn't going to produce the same amount of tax revenue, then where are they going to get the money from? This has kike written all over it. it's like he's suggesting we devalue ourselves, maybe that would work if we just opened all the borders and demanded as many refugees as we could get, in perpetuity.
>>71603705
Doesnt solve any human factor tough.
And why weed?
>>71603855
wtf, I think I know the guy in that pic...
>>71605920
FUCKIN
GENIOS
>>71603705
I only see this happening once machines start replacing workers majorly
>>71606102
im confused
>>71604978
Because corporations exist to profit their owners and shareholder, the state exists to govern organized society
All other serious issues aside, I think the biggest risk is that whoever distributes the money has complete control over your life.
Make racist comment on the internet? No neetbucks
Vote for extremist parties? No neetbucks
Express concern against illegal immigrants? No neetbucks
Etc
He's right, most modern work is the equivalent of your school ma'arm assigning you pointless busywork to occupy the hour.
pushing emails through an intertube for an hour a day and playing Minesweeper or watching porn the rest of the workday isn't real work. Neither is the nigger standing around Wal-Mart shooting the breeze with his fellow nogs instead of stocking shelves or sweeping the floor or manning a register or anything doing any actual work.
A basic income will work but only with a few conditions.
1: It replaces the monetary policy of the central bank creating money for private banks and attempting to manipulate the finical markets by interest rate manipulation.
2: The amount of money created is held to an exact formula based on the economic output in terms of total sales less any incomes paid or dividends paid.
That is to say, total sales - wages and dividends = the amount of money created.
3: No more taxes collected on income or profit, government is operated based on a portion of the created currency that it spends.
4: Is only paid to legal residents.
>>71605920
Do any of these economists ever account for nigger ghettos?
Do they seriously believe that gangsters will give up dealing drugs?
There are never enough dats to gibs.
I'd only support minimum income if it meant *entirely* getting rid of welfare, halting immigration, and paying un-people to sterilize themselves.
>NEETbux will be paid to you in your lifetime
>>71606252
well if we took a trillion dollars and distributed it equally amongst the people we'd each get $3k so do the rest of the math
>>71606069
You do know that there are far more white people than blacks (13%) yet they make up 25% of the SNAP recipients, dont you?
>>71603705
19 trillion in national debt and counting. a basic income would create negative GDP growth just like the stimulus package did
fun fact the government spending money it doesnt have hurts gdp growth in the same quarter. the stimulus package is responsible for most of the negative gdp growth in 2009 it wasnt the housing market kek
>>71606426
>I've never had a job and I think this is the average workday for most Americans
>>71606437
None of this will happen. Politicians will use increasing the Neetbuck to get elected until it all collapses
>>71606130
>They can make a website it just costs a billion dollars
Kek.
Sounds like here as well. When they go to an area where they want to build something new, whether it'll be an airport or train station, it'll cost them millions of dollars just to study it for 5 years, then it'll cost millions more to study it for an extra 5 years. It's ridiculous, they should all be shot.
>>71606403
The German actually gets it.
This is the government controlling society by controlling every purchase.
This is the same thing as cashless society and internet of things, it'll all be one control grid with an instant index of your browsing habits and political statements.
Nobody will ever criticize the government again if they know what's good for 'em.
>>71606543
>None of this will happen.
Within our currency economic system and currency governmental systems.
Which is why we need to establish a new order, free from Jews and their tricks.
>>71606463
Whoopie, $3k a year. That'll sure do a lot.
>>71606549
The Obamacare website cost 800 million dollars. FOR A WEBSITE. So many people got so fucking rich off of idiot liberals and their American universal health care system
>>71606514
and you do know white people make up 39% of the recipients seriously what was your point there?
>>71603705
Except Milton Friedman said this 40 years ago and called it negative income tax.
>>71606298
> implying that absolute numbers are more important than proportional numbers
>>71606268
In theory, maybe, but not in practice. As it stands, to get government assistance you have to prove you're in need of it, which involves a lot of bureaucracy and paperwork, and if there's any change in your circumstances, you can lose your eligibility for benefits. What that means is, in effect, it's safer to not take on the risk of having a job or starting a business, and instead to simply continue to collect benefits.
Under a basic income, in contrast, it doesn't matter to your eligibility if you have a job or make any money or not; there's no potential downside for you as an individual. Any money you make is just more money in your pocket, rather than a potential loss of the stable benefits money.
>>71606298
It stands to reason that there are more whites on welfare than blacks on welfare because there are more whites than blacks.
On the other hand, blacks are disproportionately far more likely to be on welfare than whites are.
>>71606015
>He's proposing that everyone get paid for doing nothing which, according to him, would stimulate the economy by increasing purchasing power.
They never mention that the government has to tax businesses at 90% or more in order to recover the money that they gave out.
Either that or they print more money.
>>71606633
Yet we make up 60%-75% (depending on what you view as white) of the country. Do you understand numbers?
>>71603705
I'm just wondering, but how exactly it would work?
>>71606686
He's a moron or a shitposter, he can't do anything but liberal doublethink
>>71606736
MAGIC
>>71604645
>the evidence suggests that it'll work
Have you libs ever taken an economics course in your life?
I'm a neet that gets absolutely no money from any social programs. I live off my mom buying me food. I'm basically a human pet.
>>71606673
So, firstly I would dispute the notion that the reason people on the dole do not seek work is that they're just such forward thinkers that they're risk averse. It seems pretty clear that their reasons are ideological, not economic.
But second, I would say that even if that were the reason, your basic income model provides the same disinsentives. At low income levels, working provides more than not working. But as one's wages increase, so too do one's taxes as you clearly point out. There's an equilibrium threshold above which it is no longer profitable to work. That's the exact effect that you're arguing is keeping people on the dole now from attempting to become self sufficient.
>>71606633
75% of the Adult population (You know working age) we get 39% of the money.
>>71606002
Good word
>>71606393
It's a shit plan
>>71606802
So give him the ol' red pill.
>>71605854
You'd be surprised, im just a jaintor for a prestigious university, but once everyone leaves i solve the hardest prOblems on the board.
This was already tried.
It was called USSR.
It FAILED.
>>71605809
Maybe we could have an economic system that isn't based on constantly consuming useless shit
why are liberals advocating this? I feel there are sinister ulterior motives.
>>71607105
That's dangerous thinking.
>>71607105
wat?
we don't have an economic system based on consuming shit. that is an ancillary effect of any free market. People create things and then sell them, since there is not that much regulation for useless junk, and people are generally retarded, you create consumerism.
I always get a good chuckle at libtards. damn you guys are stupid.
>>71606252
If you include:
Social Security, Income Security, Medicare, Healthcare and Veterans Benefits, it comes out to about 4.69 trillion dollars. If you simply divided all of that money up between the citizens of the United States evenly, that would come out to about 14,000 dollars a year and change for each person. That would probably be enough to live off of in cities, at a very low standard of living.
>>71606559
>>71606403
China already started this, without even introducing basic income. In just a few years every citizen will get a rating assigned which is among other stuff based on "proper online behavior". And getting a low score will lock you out from job opportunities and result in god knows what other kinds of discrimination.
>>71607235
libs want nearly everything to be free, BUT they want 3rd world countries and the "top 1%" to pay for all of it and provide for them.
this is the reason they're open borders because they want more spics working and paying taxes for their free shit.
they also want to tax the rich for even more free shit.
they want to be the faggots in the middle who dont do anything but receive all the reward.
>>71606402
Right, so corporations actually exist to help someone (their shareholders) whereas the government exists exclusively to control you.
Additionally the government regularly murders its people.
>>71606686
Dandy. It goes without saying blacks are more likely to be dependent on welfare then whites because it's predominately black families that are in lower income ghettos.
So why is it that nearly 4 in 10 white families are likely to be on welfare, in comparison with just 2 in 10 black families dependent, when only one group is actually living in the ghetto, generally speaking?
>>71606671
funny you say that because I'm saying proportionally speaking, white people are using more welfare than black people. They're might be more of us using it, but we're still not using it as much.
no I'm not on welfare and in my life I haven't, my mother has almost 3 decades ago
>>71605799
Eh, do boring, shitty work for a boring, shitty company because I'm worried about having a steady paycheck and health care.
If I didn't have to worry about that I'd be working for risk-taking tech startups and trying to kickstart new companies.
>>71603705
I have never smoked weed. friends said it makes you lazy as fuck.
any true?
>>71606897
>So, firstly I would dispute the notion that the reason people on the dole do not seek work is that they're just such forward thinkers that they're risk averse. It seems pretty clear that their reasons are ideological, not economic.
It's hardly forward thinking. It's, "don't work, don't try to earn money, and your expenses will be covered," or, "work, and risk losing any financial security you have." Have you ever actually personally known people who get assistance? It's pretty common to do work under the table just to make ends meet, and there's the constant worry that they'll lose benefits, for one reason or another (i.e., eligibility changes, budget cuts).
>But second, I would say that even if that were the reason, your basic income model provides the same disinsentives. At low income levels, working provides more than not working. But as one's wages increase, so too do one's taxes as you clearly point out. There's an equilibrium threshold above which it is no longer profitable to work. That's the exact effect that you're arguing is keeping people on the dole now from attempting to become self sufficient.
Not at all. Under basic income, any dollar earned is *always* more money than you had before, WITHOUT any loss of basic income security. The basic income is always there, so if you get laid off or have an emergency, you have something to fall back on.
>>71606559
You could still work though.
>>71607045
One reason why it failed is because the western world sanctioned the fuck out of their economy. Keep that in mind when pointing out how bad life was in commie countries.
>>71605575
>>71605706
>>71606304
>>71603705
>>71607105
>based on constantly consuming useless shit
>What is paying wages
>What is paying for business-related bills(inputs)
>What is ordering intermediate goods for later-stage production
Libs say some dumb shit
>>71606439
>Do any of these economists ever account for nigger ghettos?
>Do they seriously believe that gangsters will give up dealing drugs?
>There are never enough dats to gibs.
But those people are already not working.
The increased gibs would make them less likely to rob/murder working people to get monies for mareuhwanah and purple drank.
>>71607005
I think I once saw you skittering around a bar asking people if they liked apples.
>>71607410
Right.
>>71607449
>Free enterprise is bad, we're going to destroy all free enterprise!
>WH-WHY WON'T YOU TRADE WITH US YOU EVIL CAPITALISTS!
>>71607472
>Iti s a fact today that one in ten thousand of us can make a technological breakthrough capable of supporting all the rest.
Actually, that's an objectively false statement. It was never true even one time in Richard Buckminster Fuller's entire life.
>>71607349
and you could probably stretch it out a little more, you have to be 18 and maybe anyone making over $80k or something gets less
it's a neat idea, too simple to ever actually happen, like a flat tax
>>71607582
>what are cell phone apps
>>71606102
I think the idea is you do this once machines take over all manual labor
>>71607472
Do you know what the malthusian trap is the future you are proposing is a fucking nightmare. Industrialization broke us out of the trap and people like you will throw us right back into it.
http://cgge.aag.org/PopulationandNaturalResources1e/CF_PopNatRes_Jan10/CF_PopNatRes_Jan108.html
>>71603705
Universal income is a cheaper alternative than supporting all the niggers who distribute gibs. Plus if you make money, it will be taxed out of you. You guys don't understand that pennies on the dollar make it to the recipients. The biggest gibs are to "middle class" niggers who are in charge of those programs. I'd rather have a universal income than the shit show that we have now.
>>71607610
A form of merchandise. They certainly haven't obsoleted labor.
>>71607626
manual labor jobs are probably going to be the last thing robots take over
>>71603705
Any year trusting a JEW
>>71606809
I can't speak for other liberals. Aside from reviewing a lot of papers in economics, and reading a lot of articles in economics, and taking some microeconomics/macroeconomics, nope not at all familiar with economics. Now, have you reviewed the evidence, and can you point out what's wrong with it aside from the confabulated claim made by that other poster?
Also, here's the evidence.
http://economics.mit.edu/files/10849
http://science.sciencemag.org/content/sci/suppl/2012/02/22/335.6071.962.DC1/deMel-SOM.pdf
>>71607414
First of all, source your claims.
Secondly, the obvious flaw in your logic is that only lower income ghettos (a term that is ill defined) are not the places we would find people dependent (another ill defined term, which I suspect is the root of your poor logic) on welfare.
>>71603705
Yes goyim we'll provide you with what you need. You will alwa- I mean you can always depend on us.
>>71603705
This has been known since the 70s anon.
The problems are political not economic.
>>71603705
Basic income sounds retarded go trump. why would anyone work if they iddnt need too
https://soundcloud.com/couchtruthing/trump-loves-america
>>71604761
No it isnt. It isnt as mixed as the US and Swedes are still a majority but its no longer homogeneous.
35 % have a non-Swedish background in Stockholm (biggest city), 27-30 % in Gothenburg (second biggest), 45-50 % in Malmö (third biggest)
>>71607235
There are.
Mark of the Beast.
>>71603705
With welfare.... Don't we already have a basic income.. The difference is that you have to get off your ass and apply for it... I guess they just want to get rid of the stipulations about trying to find a job or something
>>71606629
Wewwwwwwwww lad, 800?! That's insane. The website designers must be laughing.
>800
>still fails
>>71607399
This
>>71607436
It won't "make" you lazy, but it certainly won't help. In moderation it's the best way to relax.
My brother smokes pot and is incredibly successful.
>>71607876
Non-swedish is code for other Europeans. Again you know nothing about Diversity but you will.
The fucking UN has projected your country will be third world by 2030
>>71607784
Since you're probably not going to look here: look at page 11
http://economics.mit.edu/files/10849
this is a comparison of various treatment groups (cash transfer programs) vs. no cash transfer. There are no differences in terms of how much people work. That suggests that people don't end up lazy and stop working simply because they receive money.
>>71607861
>why would anyone work if they didn't need to
Because there's more to life than just money, but most people cant follow their aspirations without any and are stuck as slaves to the capitalist machine for the rest of their lives.
>>71603705
Why would anyone want to work as a janitor,or garbage collector,or in a wallmart,or in construction in wind,rain and heat?
Society would literally collapse.
>>71604310
This is actually how its supposed to work.
Tax the resources of the nation to pay the taxes NOT income tax.
Only thing is, rich people don't like paying taxes for welfare programs.
>>71607442
>"work, and risk losing any financial security you have."
That's forward thinking. That's planning for the future and weighing potential risk. No, I absolutely do not think that those people are making that sort of risk analysis.
>Have you ever actually personally known people who get assistance?
Yes, and they fell into two distinct camps. Temporarily dispossessed people who worked as hard and as fast as they could to get off welfare, and those permanently entrenched in it. Interestingly, both people tended to become less industrious because of the government welfare they were receiving. Because, hey guess what, when you incentivize something you get more of it. Who knew.
I also find your analysis to be very telling in that you completely ignore where the money for the dole comes from.
>The basic income is always there
So then wouldn't that be even more devestating? If people are budgeting with their earned income and welfare in mind, and then they lose their earned income, would they not be completely unable to meet their living expenses?
Also, you're dodging the point. Which is, to reiterate, that there is still a disincentive to work above a certain level, because notionally there will come a point at which your taxation will be so great that it equals or exceeds your "basic income." So at that point, earning more is pointless. You're just working harder so the government can take more.
>>71607887
That retarded thinking is why we have an army of bureaucrats. There are many assistance programs that employ an army of government employees. They are checking people if they qualify, they enforce the rules. With universal income all those affirmative action "workers" will be gone. They would cause less harm if they themselves get that income than they muck up the government.
>>71607861
Because it would be implemented in white countries only. And it would inflate the value of labour, decresing inequality. All this is in theory and is a long way of being put in practice, despite what some may tell you.
>>71608032
You're misunderstanding every norwegian is a millionaire based on their oil fund. Do they live like millionaires? NO
Even with a trillion dollars oil fund and a population of 4 million. Norway is the best socialism can do
>>71603705
>basic income
>implying the problem is poor people don't have enough money, not that they waste it all
guess whats going to happen when deshawn gets his dude free money
he spends it all on boss nigga shit and drugs in 3 months, is still poor, still needs gibs AYY MAN I CAN'T EVEN FEED MY KIDS OUT HERE I NEED DEM FOOD STAMPS BACK
face it delusional liberals, this won't work, just like all of your other half baked ideas
>>71604887
This. Also, it very rapidly becomes unsustainable IF YOU DON'T ENFORCE YOUR BORDERS *cough cough* sorry.
>>71608028
Because the universal income will be less than adequate for expected quality of life. It removes the debate about the minimum wage, and it kills illegal immigration. The citizens will have an edge over illegals. The citizen with universal income can compete with an immigrant, and his total comp will be enough to afford the quality of life that's expected. You people don't see the beauty of it.
>>71603705
>http://www.techinsider.io/sam-altman-praises-basic-income-on-freakonomics-podcast-2016-4
Jews lie.
With Jews you lose.
>>71608208
In fact socialist government in Norway is going to use every fucking dime to displace and dispossess the native population
>>71608028
Robots nigger.
We will have robots do that.
Ok so no one works....who keeps the water running, the lights on, who takes care of us when we are sick?
>>71605678
>Friedman...basic income
negative income tax=\=basic neetbux
>>71608208
Smoking weed was never part of Socialism, neither was basic income and Norway is a monarchy.
Can you Americans stop with your bullshit?
>>71608283
liberals will moan that illegals deserve to have a basic income too
>>71608208
No not really, just if you have that oil tax fund shit, that frees up money to do other things. Overall its a plus.
>>71608359
the people who do work who get taxed 90% because the government needs income to payout basic income.
>>71608337
what fucking robots?
>if we just give free money away everything else will fall into place :)
this is what libtards actually believe
>>71608436
The ones that literally all tech companies are working on to replace human workers.
>>71608359
You're starting with the wrong assumption that everybody will just stop working, so your question is irrelevant. We've got a pretty solid welfare system here in Germany. Is our enemployment quota 100%? No, it's around 5% because not everybody is a lazy fuck.
>>71608399
Norway is not a fucking monarchy the king has no real power. Fuck off Slovenia
>>71608525
Why wouldn't it?
>>71608613
The flying car robots. They're right around the corner goy gives all your money
>>71607472
I like Bucky. But for all foreseeable scenarios this sentiment has more individual philosophical meaning than societal. We're not even close to implementing this on a culture wide level. Maybe a small non-rapefugeed European country. Not the US.
>>71608615
This. Not having to work at McDonald's to survive would allow people to pursue what they actually want to do with their lives.
>>71608617
Norway isn't even in EU and king doesn't has to have power, he just has to have ownership and money, which they do and capitalism serves them just right. We have free trade globalism going on now, they literally don't need to be on throne, since they can buy shit all over the world. Royals are mostly owners of banks, where they hide money of Jews and other rich people, like they wanted since forever.
>>71608745
>Not having to work at McDonald's to survive would allow people to pursue what they actually want to do with their lives.
You mean shit posting on 4chan, reddit, facebook, tumblr and playing video games/watching anime all day?
>>71608613
DARPA throws millions at robots and they barely have a functioning walking one. fortune 500 companies have been working on autonomous cars and they barely have that but somehow they are going to develop a robot that can do jobs with limited instruction cheaper than what humans can do.
What do you call the fantasy land you live in?
>>71608812
If that's what they wanna do then so be it, but do you honestly think the people who want to excell won't?
I honestly don't understand how this could work.
Let's say that this is put into action, the people of a nation are given an allowance of $5k a month regardless of if they work or not--so everyone is automatically given $5k a month. Wouldn't that absolutely fuck up the economy? Companies would either jack up the prices or pay their workers less. The value of the dollar would go down. Either way there would still be major differences between classes. Think how much more money the upper class will make with everyone getting a basic spending allowance of $5k? I feel like I'm missing something here guys.
>>71608068
>That's forward thinking. That's planning for the future and weighing potential risk. No, I absolutely do not think that those people are making that sort of risk analysis.
I don't know who you're talking about, exactly. Most people who get benefits are smart enough to know that if they're reporting income, they stand to lose their monthly government check.
>I also find your analysis to be very telling in that you completely ignore where the money for the dole comes from.
I didn't mention it because it wasn't material. I acknowledged that basic income is paid for through taxes here >>71606162
>So then wouldn't that be even more devestating? If people are budgeting with their earned income and welfare in mind, and then they lose their earned income, would they not be completely unable to meet their living expenses?
Likely, but they'd have at least a minimal income to fall back on, which is better than none at all.
>Also, you're dodging the point. Which is, to reiterate, that there is still a disincentive to work above a certain level, because notionally there will come a point at which your taxation will be so great that it equals or exceeds your "basic income." So at that point, earning more is pointless.
Watch Milton Friedman talk about his negative income tax proposal (which is similar in principle to basic income), he explains it better than I can: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xtpgkX588nM
>>71608422
> muh taxes
Current situation is that lower and middle class who do actually work are taxed with roughly 50%, while the filthy rich only pay around 2% (!) taxes thanks to a network of loopholes. It's estimated that we lose about 160 billion per year to their tax evasion schemes.
>>71608405
Illegals can't receive other gibs as well. Why would they suddenly receive universal income? You need SSI# to get it. The whole point is to cut bureaucracy and checks and make lower classes competitive with illegals. No more minimum wage discussions and illegals will simply not be able to afford to live here. Net of universal income their comp will not cover living expenses.
>>71608792
They should be on the Throne because they are the king and queen of Norway. Norwegians aren't all filthy rich because they are socialists. Why doesn't Norway do what Alaska does and give the oil money directly to the people??
>>71604645
>>yeah, people with your argumentative style made the same claim with respect to universal health care, and that was incorrect. it works in canada
Ask any Canadian if it works
>>71609030
>Illegals can't receive other gibs as well
HAHAHAHAHHAHA you actually believe this? kill yourself
I'd like to chime in and say that basic income is already in the process of being rolled out in Ontario. I haven't found any documents citing an exact date yet. I fully support the idea provided that gibsmedat economic migrants are exempt from the program. I know many people personally that this would make a world of difference to.
http://www.theprovince.com/touch/story.html?id=11782050
>>71608966
Food and rent would have to be fixed for this to work, among other things.
It's possible maybe for a smaller homogeneous society; not large and multicultural and with relatively open borders.
I think it could work really well in a small, all white country.
>>71603705
Will eventually have to happen when automation makes human work superfluous(of course reproductive rights will have to be restricted), but would be a huge waste at the current moment.
As it has been for a while, the solution is to create state funded jobs that pay well.
Private companies have always failed in providing enough jobs for people, and this is because they do not care about the interests of any particular countries' population. They care about acquiring profits and often times that means they must cut jobs in order to hold onto this goal. This is inefficient because it neccessarily means that a country is not taking 100% advantage of it's work ready population. If a country were to provide jobs for these interlopers then it would not only increase production but it would create actual real competition among companies for workers in the private sector as well as driving up wages almost universally in accordance with government pay.
It's still a mystery why 100% employment is so repulsive to political parties nowadays.
>>71608987
This. The rich do everything in their power to avoid paying taxes, if they actually paid what they owe instead of getting another yacht we would be far better off. I don't understand how anyone can live in such excess, there comes a point where you have more money than you can spend in your lifetime and you're a dick for sitting on it.
>>71608887
>If that's what they wanna do then so be it,
yeah this wont be happening.
>, but do you honestly think the people who want to excell won't?
the people who "want" to excel already do so your commie faggotry isnt needed.
>>71609268
>>It's still a mystery why 100% employment is so repulsive to political parties nowadays.
because political parties are based solely for the purpose of obtaining power and political office, holding it, and expanding it, not for the interests of you, me, or anyone who's not a politician/donor
>>71609268
Yep.
Full employment >>> raising minimum wage or basic income
>>71609331
>. I don't understand how anyone can live in such excess, there comes a point where you have more money than you can spend in your lifetime and you're a dick for sitting on it.
What your LIBERAL FAGGOT ass doesnt realize is that they have no reason to spend it on anything.
They're not fucking retards with their money like you are that spend it on retarded shit.
>>71608973
>I don't know who you're talking about
Okay, I'm generalizing people who are entrenched in generational welfare.
>Most people who get benefits are smart enough to know that if they're reporting income, they stand to lose their monthly government check.
At what point? If they're taking welfare, they probably aren't good enough at math and research to find out how much money they can make before they're bumped into the next bracket.
>I acknowledged that basic income is paid for through taxes here
Whence come those taxes. What's the opportunity cost? What about Bastiat's Seen and Unseen?
>Likely, but they'd have at least a minimal income to fall back on, which is better than none at all.
Well, no, that's actually worse because they were counting on it the entire time. Wouldn't it make more sense to have a dole that kicks in when they lose their jobs to provide their temporary living expenses while they search for a new one? Because under your basic income model, they're sure to be unable to pay their bills in the event of job loss.
Or really, I would say what's superior is to have no government dole whatsoever.
>Watch Milton Friedman talk
I'll watch it later when I have time. Either summarize it, or let's move on.
>>71607329
>>71607502
Why so triggered?
Its inherently obvious that people in the west waste all their disposable income on cheap low quality bullshit they don't need or even really want.
Have you ever been to Target with a woman? Have you ever been to a poor person's house?
Most folks on welfare could get off of it if they just stopped making impulse buys. If they stopped eating Big Macs and switched to beans & rice they would save money on food and on healthcare expenses for their no-longer-fat asses.
>>71609403
What's the point of having money if you don't spend it?
>>71609188
Those are some good ideas. Let's say this is a larger country, such as the United States of America in its current condition. Could this be rolled out in the next century and somehow work? If not, what changes and rules would have to be in place for this to work and would those be feasible?
I'm really trying to give this idea the benefit of the doubt, but I'm just not seeing it and I know you guys are good at crackpot ideas and theories.
>>71609553
>What's the point of having money if you don't spend it?
you just outed yourself, you're nothing more than a retarded liberal faggot poorfag who thinks his paycheck gets wasted if its not gone by the next week.
they save loads of money for when the opportunity to fund something good comes along.
they save it for the future basically.
>>71609054
>Unitary parliamentary constitutional monarchy
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sweden
>Unitary parliamentary constitutional monarchy
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Norway
>Unitary parliamentary constitutional monarchy
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Venezuela
>Federal presidential constitutional republic
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States
>Federal presidential constitutional republic
Free trade, pro-privatization capitalism didn't solve monarchy or poverty, it only deepen the problem. Now royal families are free of obligation to countries, they can import foreigners and they can invest anywhere they want. They just aren't sitting on throne, but why would they want that anyway? They can buy anything, even politicians. There is only one way you successfully banish monarchy, by taking away all their money and possibly cutting off their heads, that's the only proper way. Giving them more money and less responsibility as capitalism has done, accomplishes monarchy having more power than ever. Africa is fucked completely, middle east is fucked completly, ex-European countries robbed. All those ex-royals we banned during WW1 & WW2 in Austria and Germany now sit at top CEO positions all over the globe. You just don't hear about them, that's all.
>>71609635
Well when you make dick it's pretty hard for it not to be gone by the time the next paycheck rolls around
>>71609796
manage your finances better, improve yourself.
post detailed finances and we will easily find the problem.
>>71609635
That's his point, they save it so they can make more money to save, so they can invest it later to make more money. Again, what is the point? After some millions money doesn't change your life anymore
>>71609648
>Free trade, pro-privatization capitalism didn't solve monarchy or poverty, it only deepen the problem. Now royal families are free of obligation to countries, they can import foreigners and they can invest anywhere they want. They just aren't sitting on throne, but why would they want that anyway? They can buy anything, even politicians. There is only one way you successfully banish monarchy, by taking away all their money and possibly cutting off their heads, that's the only proper way. Giving them more money and less responsibility as capitalism has done, accomplishes monarchy having more power than ever. Africa is fucked completely, middle east is fucked completly, ex-European countries robbed. All those ex-royals we banned during WW1 & WW2 in Austria and Germany now sit at top CEO positions al
None of this is Unique to Monarchy's. The minute the west became half socialist demographic replacement started. I have yet to find a problem you cant pin on multiculturalism.
>>71609551
the fuck is wrong with you stupid libtards and your inability to acknowledge personal responsibility?
You would move heaven and earth so as not to blame a nigger for doing something wrong. You blame everything but the problem. You are a fucking cancer to society.
>>71609902
the point is to allocate money properly and not spend it on useless shit.
imagine if retards had that money and spent it on a billion dollars worth of fireworks just to waste it all in 1 month.
thats basically what communism gives you and its part of the reason russia went to shit, horrible inefficiency.
>>71608068
>So then wouldn't that be even more devestating? If people are budgeting with their earned income and welfare in mind, and then they lose their earned income, would they not be completely unable to meet their living expenses?
... People can lower their living expenses. Jesus christ, are you even thinking about these arguments? Yes, if you lose your job you're probably going to have to move into a smaller place or drive a shittier car or eat cheaper food. Losing a job requires lifestyle changes, news at 11:00.
>Also, you're dodging the point. Which is, to reiterate, that there is still a disincentive to work above a certain level, because notionally there will come a point at which your taxation will be so great that it equals or exceeds your "basic income." So at that point, earning more is pointless. You're just working harder so the government can take more.
This is basically just word salad. I don't even know how you thought any of this made sense. Basic income does not require that there exist a tax bracket with 100% taxation (i.e. a maximum income). You are confusing two entirely different concepts, the latter of which I don't think anyone important has ever seriously proposed because it's retarded and pointless.
The entire point of basic income is that it preserves the incentive to work. You get some money to cover bare necessities, and if you work you get even more money to spend on booze and weed and videogames and whatever the fuck else lazy stoners spend their money on. Eventually, automation is going to make basic income a necessity. In the long run, robots are going to take all of our jobs and unemployment is going to creep upwards until we have either basic income or blood in the streets. The good news is that basic income is surprisingly affordable - productivity has doubled over the past forty years, which means we could match the output of the 1976 economy with half the labor-hours per capita. That's amazing.
>>71609555
Once all non-skilled work professions that can be automated are automated, it will pretty much have to be implemented. That's a ways off. Once it happens, what's going to be necessary is probably a cultural shift in values. As in, it's not cool to be a NEET faggot past 23. Not that that isn't already the case, but with basic income implemented it would mean something else.
I honestly like it as an idea, I just don't think it's possible anytime soon for any high population multicultural society.
Honestly, the best you can do as an individual imo is create this reality yourself. Find someway to set up your life so you have time to pursue your natural curiosity, or otherwise non-immediate income producing "calling". This can be done in various ways. Find a job where you can work 3 months out of the year and not have to work for 9 months if you're frugal. Or if you're an artist, or fringe scientist, or have some sort of passion or direction, find patrons, or otherwise people willing to support you. If you don't have kids this shit isn't the hardest thing in the world.
>>71610009
All that spare money will never be properly spent, only invested into making more. It's just the numbers going up after a while, money which will stay in the family and help them mantain their status. And then evade taxes using loopholes.
>>71610155
People will just breed until the population density is so high a basic income wont work.
>>71610253
>All that spare money will never be properly spent, only invested into making more
Which is still a better option than using it on retarded shit.
>It's just the numbers going up after a while, money which will stay in the family and help them mantain their status. And then evade taxes using loopholes.
Which is why you dont vote for retards that make those laws and you figure out what bullshit they're trying to pull.
>>71603705
Don't native Americans already get basic income from the government? What do they do the whole day? Researching, composing, contributing?
>>71607359
Using American and European software at that. Guess we have to product test on the slants first
>>71609942
CHILDREN OF """BANISHED""" AUSTRIAN MONARCHY:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Otto_von_Habsburg
Otto von Habsburg was Vice President (1957–1973) and President (1973–2004) of the International Paneuropean Union, and served as a Member of the European Parliament for the Christian Social Union of Bavaria (CSU) from 1979 to 1999.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert,_Archduke_of_Austria-Este
On 16 April 1917, at the age of two, Robert was created Archduke of Austria-Este by his father, the Emperor. Archduke Robert was thereby chosen to preserve, in the form of a distinct secundogeniture, the Habsburg-Lorraine representation of the once-sovereign Duchy of Modena which had belonged to the House of Este. He was thus made heir to his assassinated relative Archduke Franz Ferdinand of Austria, (1863–1914)
+ALL FUTURE FAMILY, LOTS AND LOTS OF BANKERS AND RULERS OF POLITICS
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Archduke_Felix_of_Austria
In June 1998, in a joint action with his brother Carl Ludwig, Felix attempted to have the properties which were given to their ancestor Maria Theresa of Austria by her husband Francis I, Holy Roman Emperor restored to them after the properties had been taken from the Habsburg family by Adolf Hitler during the Anschluss.
+ALL FUTURE FAMILY, LOTS AND LOTS OF BANKERS AND RULERS OF POLITICS
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Archduke_Rudolf_of_Austria_%281919%E2%80%932010%29
After the war he travelled to the United States, Canada and the Belgian Congo.[3]
Rudolf worked as a Wall Street junior executive[4] and a bank director.
...etc.
+ 20000 more such guys from banished monarchy, they btw all have multiple children, all of course future CEOs of banks and corporations.
>>71606333
https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCr_0zCAer81TIamjFddOMOA
speaking of which, I bet he chimped out after Trump won last night
>>71607810
1) google is ur friend m8
"According to demographic data, 39.8% of SNAP participants are white, 25.5% are African-American, 10.9% are Hispanic, 2.4% are Asian, and 1% are Native American."
http://www.snaptohealth.org/snap/snap-frequently-asked-questions/#who
2) Exactly my point! I wasn't using my logic, I was using >>71605647, as he was the one talking about "nigger ghettos" (aka low income, crime ridden predominately aa neighborhoods)
fyi, I define low-income areas as places apartment complexes, overcrowded projects, most residents making less than 30k/year
>>71610309
It's not a better option for society. It will not help it become more equal and rich.
As for the loopholes, rich people can bribe almost any politician, and you really cannot tell if your generic law school politician who matches your world view will resist the temptation.
>>71610519
>It's not a better option for society. It will not help it become more equal and rich.
you have downs if you think this is true.
id rather they keep the money than have the bottom retards spend it on retarded shit.
>As for the loopholes, rich people can bribe almost any politician, and you really cannot tell if your generic law school politician who matches your world view will resist the temptation.
thats called not being a retard and electing people who wont fall for bribes and making sure that if they do actually do it you spy on them enough to have evidence of it.
>>71603705
>literally who
basic income as in communism?
Im an economics idiot. can someone explain why this is bad? wouldnt everyone having money allow for people to spend money on products and services, thus giving back money to industries and services? in the end, all money is redistributed either way. theres no need for 1% of people to horde billions of dollars and have it just sit away, inaccessible to people who could easily spend it on goods.
>>71610293
Yeah, there has to be another enlightenment basically for this to work. A major shift cultural shift in values and probably a bump up in avg intelligence. We're not even close.
>>71610773
government has a 8 dollar income.
give 8 dollars to 8 people.
those 8 people spend all 1 dollar on the same business.
government must now tax those businesses 8 dollars to keep the cycle going OR they print more money.
>>71610680
Socialism has equal Salaries, so rich people can't exist. There is no need for basic income in Socialism, since you get a job as easy as buying a hamburger. Welfare and basic money is given in countries where you can't employ everybody.
>>71610568
We're talking about social and economic conditions here, people having money to spend is good. It doesn't matter if they're going to spend it on retarded shit, if it means they will afford to live somewhat better.
You really don't know politics if you think you can tell which politicians can be bribed. Even by legal means rich people will still hold leverage. Of course once in a blue moon an exceptional kind of politician comes into play, like trump.
>you have downs if you think this is true.
not an argument
If we're going to have a welfare state then we might as well make the jump to universal basic income. The idea of giving people money just for existing seems wrong to me (what happens when the government subsidises something?) but we already have that with a massive bureaucracy to go with it. Realistically we'll never eliminate welfare, but at least with UBI we can reduce the cost surrounding it and stop the welfare trap from ensnaring the poor.
>>71609535
>At what point? If they're taking welfare, they probably aren't good enough at math and research to find out how much money they can make before they're bumped into the next bracket.
Right, so for them it just makes more sense to avoid the risk and not have any (declared) income.
>I'll watch it later when I have time
Watch about three minutes starting here, then: https://youtu.be/82SG_EpCsVs?t=24m46s
Basically, there's no disincentive to earning more. It's pretty straightforward.
>>71603705
I'm not sure how to feel about UBI. On one hand, I can see it becoming monumentally expensive and causing rampant inflation, as more people refuse to work and pay taxes and the burden of paying for UBI is shifted onto those who are still working; but on the other hand, according to the studies referenced in that article, people don't up and quit their jobs when they have guaranteed income. Potentially, like another anon said here earlier, UBI could be a drastic simplification to the welfare system. You could help keep the cost of UBI to taxpayers down by getting rid of food stamps, public housing, welfare checks, etc. and instead just give everyone a check. In fact, you could probably justify getting rid of minimum wage too. If you secure the borders and drastically limit immigration, like another anon said, you could make sure it doesn't get too expensive and cause too much inflation. The only problem with it, that I can see, is the people who would think of it as a solution to poverty. Like yet another anon said, people generally aren't frugal and would probably piss their checks away on stupid shit. But even then, they're stimulating the economy with purchasing power they otherwise wouldn't have had.
I'm really curious whether a system like this could work. Any anons see any issues with any of this that I haven't addressed?
>>71610976
>three minutes starting here
At the timestamp following the youtube link (not the embed)
>>71610915
>We're talking about social and economic conditions here, people having money to spend is good.
This is not true as its possible to spend money badly.
>It doesn't matter if they're going to spend it on retarded shit, if it means they will afford to live somewhat better.
To see that this is not true simply look at Venezuelan, they have subsidized gasoline so they're very gas inefficient and have cars that literally leak gas as they drive.
They live "better" but eventually its all going to come crashing as there just isnt enough income to support a system like that.
>You really don't know politics if you think you can tell which politicians can be bribed. Even by legal means rich people will still hold leverage. Of course once in a blue moon an exceptional kind of politician comes into play, like trump.
Again you need to FIGURE IT OUT and WATCH them. this requires EFFORT on your part which you've made it obvious you refuse to put into anything you do.
>not an argument
but you do have downs kid.
>>71603705
this gets me sick.
they seriously think this is an option.
someone is poor, lets give him money. how simple can you even think?
>>71610868
I see...well then thats useless. First world countries like united states shouldnt have its citizens starving or being homeless though. Government funded housing units and a check for $100 of food stamps a month to not starve (totally doable as long as youre not retarded) would be good to keep moral up. poor people arent stressed about not being able to afford food and have a little place to call their own. morale goes up, quality of goes up for everyone, and violence is reduced.
>>71611019
Rich people being richer, employing robots & cheap workers from abroad, you having basic income and not working. What's so hard to understand? You basically gave owners oligarchy control over every aspect of your industry.
>>71603705
What are the math behind his suggestion? What funds does he propose to reprofile into basic income and what size of it does he plan to achieve?
>>71604887
We call that welfare here in the states and many minorities spend it on sneakers, cigars, and booze.
>>71603705
>start listening to podcasts
>start listening to Freakonomics and Planet Money
>literally both hosted by Jews
At this point I want to not to have to say /pol/ was right again..
>>71611188
>. poor people arent stressed about not being able to afford food and have a little place to call their own. morale goes up, quality of goes up for everyone, and violence is reduced.
poor fags in america havent had to stress about anything for decades.
its 100% just bad decisions now because they sell food stamps for cash to spend on retarded shit then they dont have enough money to buy food for the week because they spent it all at the club getting wasted.
the only real solution is fucking soup kitchens or something so they cant turn around and sell it.
>>71611373
>poor fags in america havent had to stress about anything for decades
Never been poor, I take it? If you had been, you'd know how utterly ridiculous a statement that is.
>>71611154
But it's 2016.
Every time this gets brought up no one is able to explain where the money will come from.
>>71611470
Ive been poor most of my life.
I knew exactly what all the other retards were doing and why they stayed poor.
We saved money year after year and eventually moved out into a home we bought.
Should I start with how poorfags would buy 200 dollars worth of food a month or should we just skip to the drugs they bought?
>>71611059
"badly" is subjective for the most part. If you mean on overpriced things, it really does not matter.
Increasing the average middle class wage is not the same as having stalled gasoline prices.
>there isn't enough income
I'm talking withing current wealty inequality and economic system. it's not supposed to create a new society and economy from scratch, just better wealth distribution.
>but you are DUMB
good argument. Most politicians have some networking with business people, which helps propell them into politics in the first place. This is not inherently a bad thing. The politicians who do not and take pride in that tend to be left leaning populists. They don't represent me.
>>71611528
A 90% tax on everyone that works and actually does something.
>>71606069
>>71610482
Bernie said that whites don't know what it's like to be poor. So I'm pretty sure you are wrong
>>71611528
Isn't money printed at USA at will?
You eat industrial garbage food, which is produced by robots anyway, you use computers produced by robots and repaired by Pajet. Everything is sorted.
>>71611556
>Ive been poor most of my life.
And it never caused you or your family stress?
>>71603705
dude weed 4/20
>>71611373
A lot of poor people are indeed retards, but there are genuinely some decent people who were just born into shit conditions and feel nothing but despair upon waking up and reentering their conscious of miserable lifestyle and conditions. They dont deserve to have this quality of life in a first world country, nor do they deserve luxury items/life unless they are willing to work for it. But they should at least have access to housing and food, the bare minimums.
The construction opens more jobs, helping the average person. The country has an excess of food always and the money is circulated right back into food products. A few billion that gets recycled back into the governemnt anyway will go along way in raising morale and reducing violence from poorer communities. I do agree some just cant be helped though
>>71611556
>Should I start with how poorfags would buy 200 dollars worth of food a month
a week*
>>71611580
>"badly" is subjective for the most part. If you mean on overpriced things, it really does not matter.
its not subjective, ill buy paper and burn it for fun since LOL FREE SHIT.
>>71611722
not when you have good finances and know what you're doing, hence why i didnt stay poor.
>>71611766
>But they should at least have access to housing and food, the bare minimums.
They already have it but are too STUPID to manage their finances properly.
>>71610440
KEK
E
K
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UCURT6P4Iho
>>71611019
>causing rampant inflation
You seem like a reasonable-ish dude, so I just want to give you a heads-up: 99% of the time you see someone suggest inflation as a potential downside to some policy, they are lying to you. Inflation is just a "scary buzzword" the mainstream neoconservative media slaps on things they want the drooling idiots they've brainwashed to hate. There's no mechanism by which the redistribution of income through taxation and UBI could cause inflation. That's just not how inflation works.
The downside to UBI is that it's expensive. It's insanely expensive. It's hugely mind-bogglingly expensive. If you're implementing UBI to save money on the administrative costs of traditional welfare programs, then that's basically like cutting off your hand to get rid of a hangnail. The administrative costs are nothing compared to the cost of extending the program to every single person in the country.
The upside to UBI is that it preserves the incentive to work. Welfare has this weird perverse incentive where you find a job and lose benefits and sometimes even end up in a worse position than when you were employed. UBI, because you continue to receive it even after you get a job, does not have this problem.
The other big - but much less explored - upside to UBI is that it will probably naturally increase wages. Let's be perfectly realistic: if "starving in the street" is the outcome of not finding a job, then employers have an advantage in wage negotiations, and that advantage is going to push wages down. By guaranteeing the basic survival of the unemployed, employers would probably have to make more competitive offers to attract workers. Less hours and higher wages - which is something we should have seen already, given productivity has doubled over the past forty years. And yet sadly we haven't.
>>71608812
If I did that all day I could live on $15k/yr
>>71611210
Well, you can always toss out free trade and have UBI to prevent an influx of foreign workers or businesses sending labor to other countries. And if you got rid of minimum wage you'd be able to delay the widespread replacement of human labor with automation, because you're making it possible for human labor to be cheaper than machine labor.
If I got basic income I might actually peace the house and stop being a depressed shit.
Looking for work and not having ANY money fucking sucks. I mean I literally have no money.
>>71611902
>Welfare has this weird perverse incentive where you find a job and lose benefits and sometimes even end up in a worse position than when you were employed.
That's supposed to say
>than when you were unemployed*.
Oops.
>>71611807
>not when you have good finances
You just said you were poor for most of your life. How can you have good finances, while simultaneously being poor for what I assume was 15+ years? And in those 15 years it apparently never caused you/your family stress?
>>71611950
>peace
JUST
Why not have anybody sit at home and smoke weed with a basic income?
>>71605066
this is the only reason to do it
