3 ms·

I think it’s UBI that’s the fantasy intended to prevent people from rebelling against this reality.

visarga 8y ago
I actually consider gig economy as a possible replacement for UBI and jobs, but not in this centralised form (Uber, etc). Instead, communities or social networks of people without corporate jobs could become self reliant by working for each other, to solve the community needs on the whole. When corporations take our jobs we still have our needs and lots of free time - and our needs create jobs or gigs. We can still work to support ourselves. Another step to enable self reliance would be the popularisation of new technologies such as open source software, 3d printing, solar power, cheap medical sensors, AI and DIY robotics (including agro-bots). Also, replacing banks with lending co-ops. A small community on the size of a village or town could provide construction, schooling, medical services, servicing tools and machines and of course, agriculture - based on an internal marketplace of gigs or jobs. On the total the community could become more and more independent from the outside. Later on, when automation reaches maturity, the self supporting community could solve most of its needs without much human work and still be independent from the state (UBI) and large-corporation jobs. Because companies are greedy and the state is corrupt, we need to take power back into our hands to prepare for the future.
- deleted 8y ago
  [deleted]
- njarboe 8y ago
  Funny how this utopian sounding idea is just a regular market economy without sales and income tax. Like the US before 1913. Too bad every time one interacts with someone else people with guns and prisons demand about 50% of the transaction. Set income and sales tax to zero and this could easily happen everywhere. It would be cool if some decent sized country would try it and use a land tax to fund the government.
  - cornholio 8y ago
    A land tax trickles down as increased agricultural and housing prices. So it's strongly recessive, that is, it affects the poor to a much greater proportion than the rich. The US before 1913 was a largely agricultural nation with strong equality due to fair capital allocation, free land distributed to homesteaders, manifest destiny and all that. Dispensing current means of income redistribution would mean reverting to a much more feudal, almost primitive state. The vast majority of people would have no agricultural property and no capital, just wages paid by immensely wealthy global capitalists that wouldn't owe any taxes.
    - throwaway2048 8y ago
      The idea that all taxes are ultimately paid for by consumers is dangerous, stupid and misleading. If companies/people could charge you more for whatever you are buying, they would. Taxation is largely paid for by reduced profitability, not increased prices. Land taxes are one of the only ways to tax non-productive, rentier style wealth that has lots of fixed assets, and merely sits on them extacting money with very little positive economic input. Since it is they who are typically the most responsible for soaring housing and real estate prices (they buy properties and then do nothing with them, often times not even renting them out), to suggest such taxes are "strongly regressive" is pretty much exactly the opposite of reality. Under a system with strong land taxes, such parties are incentivised strongly to either sell to people who want the land more (can make more money off of it by increasing density, thus pay more taxes) or to do so themselves. In a world without property tax, they are incentivised to just sit on the property forever, and do nothing to it, waiting for a huge payday far into the future.
      - cornholio 8y ago
        Agricultural producers have razor thin margins almost anywhere in the world and face strong international competition. The rent seeking landowner gouging consumers through food prices is an ideological fantasy. Quite the opposite, there is a strong tendency to overproduction and subsidies. A large land tax in such an ECON101 postcard-perfect market will immediately increase the costs of inputs to the point where production no longer makes economic sense. Either through decreased production or tariff protectionism the food prices will rise, passing the tax to consumers. That's not say taxes are always passed down to consumers, that's a pure straw-man you conjure to hurl insults. But in these two cases, they are, to an overwhelming degree.

I actually consider gig economy as a possible replacement for UBI and jobs, but not in this centralised form (Uber, etc). Instead, communities or social networks of people without corporate jobs could become self reliant by working for each other, to solve the community needs on the whole. When corporations take our jobs we still have our needs and lots of free time - and our needs create jobs or gigs. We can still work to support ourselves. Another step to enable self reliance would be the popularisation of new technologies such as open source software, 3d printing, solar power, cheap medical sensors, AI and DIY robotics (including agro-bots). Also, replacing banks with lending co-ops. A small community on the size of a village or town could provide construction, schooling, medical services, servicing tools and machines and of course, agriculture - based on an internal marketplace of gigs or jobs. On the total the community could become more and more independent from the outside. Later on, when automation reaches maturity, the self supporting community could solve most of its needs without much human work and still be independent from the state (UBI) and large-corporation jobs. Because companies are greedy and the state is corrupt, we need to take power back into our hands to prepare for the future.

deleted 8y ago
[deleted]
njarboe 8y ago
Funny how this utopian sounding idea is just a regular market economy without sales and income tax. Like the US before 1913. Too bad every time one interacts with someone else people with guns and prisons demand about 50% of the transaction. Set income and sales tax to zero and this could easily happen everywhere. It would be cool if some decent sized country would try it and use a land tax to fund the government.
- cornholio 8y ago
  A land tax trickles down as increased agricultural and housing prices. So it's strongly recessive, that is, it affects the poor to a much greater proportion than the rich. The US before 1913 was a largely agricultural nation with strong equality due to fair capital allocation, free land distributed to homesteaders, manifest destiny and all that. Dispensing current means of income redistribution would mean reverting to a much more feudal, almost primitive state. The vast majority of people would have no agricultural property and no capital, just wages paid by immensely wealthy global capitalists that wouldn't owe any taxes.
  - throwaway2048 8y ago
    The idea that all taxes are ultimately paid for by consumers is dangerous, stupid and misleading. If companies/people could charge you more for whatever you are buying, they would. Taxation is largely paid for by reduced profitability, not increased prices. Land taxes are one of the only ways to tax non-productive, rentier style wealth that has lots of fixed assets, and merely sits on them extacting money with very little positive economic input. Since it is they who are typically the most responsible for soaring housing and real estate prices (they buy properties and then do nothing with them, often times not even renting them out), to suggest such taxes are "strongly regressive" is pretty much exactly the opposite of reality. Under a system with strong land taxes, such parties are incentivised strongly to either sell to people who want the land more (can make more money off of it by increasing density, thus pay more taxes) or to do so themselves. In a world without property tax, they are incentivised to just sit on the property forever, and do nothing to it, waiting for a huge payday far into the future.
    - cornholio 8y ago
      Agricultural producers have razor thin margins almost anywhere in the world and face strong international competition. The rent seeking landowner gouging consumers through food prices is an ideological fantasy. Quite the opposite, there is a strong tendency to overproduction and subsidies. A large land tax in such an ECON101 postcard-perfect market will immediately increase the costs of inputs to the point where production no longer makes economic sense. Either through decreased production or tariff protectionism the food prices will rise, passing the tax to consumers. That's not say taxes are always passed down to consumers, that's a pure straw-man you conjure to hurl insults. But in these two cases, they are, to an overwhelming degree.