3 ms·

Every opinion on UBI is short sighted, and does not understand the macroeconomic poison that is UBI. Our economy, all economies, have lowered ethics players ope

Every opinion on UBI is short sighted, and does not understand the macroeconomic poison that is UBI. Our economy, all economies, have lowered ethics players operating at the top of each economy. UBI institutionalizes these low ethics players, as well as institutionalizes the UBI recipients and forever casts their offspring into those economic roles. UBI is nothing less than the death of hope and the elimination of any economic ladder up and out of one's birth situation. The only path is stagnant or down.

gampleman 2y ago
Can you explain this a bit more?
- bsenftner 2y ago
  See my comment below explaining a bit more
mandmandam 2y ago
As if current economic structures don’t already entrench powerful players? Lol. CBI, as outlined in the paper, is funded through monetary contraction; meaning it does not introduce traditional taxation distortions or increase government control over industry. If anything, UBI/CBI reduces dependence on hierarchical employment structures by providing individuals with a baseline income. This allows more freedom to reject exploitative labor conditions. Historical evidence suggests that when people receive unconditional income (eg, Alaska’s Permanent Fund Dividend), entrepreneurial activity and workforce participation generally increase. > institutionalizes the UBI recipients and forever casts their offspring into those economic roles Poverty traps generally result from means-tested welfare programs, not unconditional income. Many existing welfare programs disincentivize work because earning more means losing benefits. CBI is not means-tested, so earning more does not reduce benefits. If anything, it provides a safety net that makes risk-taking easier. Pilot programs in Finland, Canada, and the U.S. show that UBI does not significantly reduce employment. In Kenya, cash transfers increased education rates and business activity among recipients, breaking generational poverty cycles. If you want to declare things like "every opinion but mine is short sighted", it's generally best practice to demonstrate that you understand the relevant arguments and data.
- bsenftner 2y ago
  It does not matter how bad the current economic structures are, they have a path out. "Trickle down economics" sounded good at the time too, and now it is recognized as a farce. UBI is a bigger farce. There are at least two major issues with UBI: 1) Any system that does not provide an upward ladder to the economic top, despite being better at the bottom, is not better in whole and is actually negative for the species as a whole. Hope and the ability to better one's situation is essential. UBI and it's variants institutionalize economic positions, and that destroys hope short of an overthrowing revolution. 2) UBI will exist in our social human Capitalistic world where any and all expenditures are eyed for reduction. Those on UBI (or what ever name it ends up having) will observe a gradual reduction of their UBI and a gradual criminalization of their economic parasitism. This is human culture. This reduction of the "economic waste" that is UBI is inevitable. Humans do not give gifts for any lasting duration without oversized returns. Just look at the top posts: they ask "is this the best use of our tax dollars?" as in once UBI is active, such attitudes will immediately seek to reduce it.
  - svardilfari 2y ago
    Because the majority of opinion holders are refusing to read and internalize the parent article. You're just echoing sentiments that people make regarding their opinion on typical welfare - which your parent comment already addressed completely. Either TRY and refute those comments or don't comment at all.
    - bsenftner 2y ago
      I read the article. It's a compromise of UBI. The start of the plethora of confusion diluting the concept, part of the eventual destruction of the idea.
  - 542354234235 2y ago
    To point 1, how does receiving, say, $1,000 a month remove hope and prevent bettering oneself? Anyone receiving UBI can still get a job to get additional money. Anyone already working is still receiving their salary. I would not stop trying to promote and make more money, let alone quit my job because I was receiving an extra grand a month. Just like suddenly not having to pay for healthcare and having that extra money in my pocket wouldn’t disincentivize me. On point 2, the idea that UBI is parasitism and corporate handouts are not is ridiculous. UBI is basically the same as a stock dividend paid to shareholders, where everyone owns one “share” of the country, with all of its natural resources, infrastructure, trade, etc (something literally done in Alaska already with oil revenue). Taxes already go to things an individual will not personally use or directly benefit from, but the aggregate is a benefit to all. The highway system for example, where any individual strip of road may or may not “make more” than it costs, but the system of transit benefits everyone. Eliminating (relative) extreme poverty, and all of its criminal, health, productivity loss ills that come with it, while also reducing the massive cost to manage, check, and enforce means tested assistance is a net benefit.

gampleman 2y ago

Can you explain this a bit more?

bsenftner 2y ago
See my comment below explaining a bit more

mandmandam 2y ago

As if current economic structures don’t already entrench powerful players? Lol. CBI, as outlined in the paper, is funded through monetary contraction; meaning it does not introduce traditional taxation distortions or increase government control over industry. If anything, UBI/CBI reduces dependence on hierarchical employment structures by providing individuals with a baseline income. This allows more freedom to reject exploitative labor conditions. Historical evidence suggests that when people receive unconditional income (eg, Alaska’s Permanent Fund Dividend), entrepreneurial activity and workforce participation generally increase. > institutionalizes the UBI recipients and forever casts their offspring into those economic roles Poverty traps generally result from means-tested welfare programs, not unconditional income. Many existing welfare programs disincentivize work because earning more means losing benefits. CBI is not means-tested, so earning more does not reduce benefits. If anything, it provides a safety net that makes risk-taking easier. Pilot programs in Finland, Canada, and the U.S. show that UBI does not significantly reduce employment. In Kenya, cash transfers increased education rates and business activity among recipients, breaking generational poverty cycles. If you want to declare things like "every opinion but mine is short sighted", it's generally best practice to demonstrate that you understand the relevant arguments and data.

bsenftner 2y ago
It does not matter how bad the current economic structures are, they have a path out. "Trickle down economics" sounded good at the time too, and now it is recognized as a farce. UBI is a bigger farce. There are at least two major issues with UBI: 1) Any system that does not provide an upward ladder to the economic top, despite being better at the bottom, is not better in whole and is actually negative for the species as a whole. Hope and the ability to better one's situation is essential. UBI and it's variants institutionalize economic positions, and that destroys hope short of an overthrowing revolution. 2) UBI will exist in our social human Capitalistic world where any and all expenditures are eyed for reduction. Those on UBI (or what ever name it ends up having) will observe a gradual reduction of their UBI and a gradual criminalization of their economic parasitism. This is human culture. This reduction of the "economic waste" that is UBI is inevitable. Humans do not give gifts for any lasting duration without oversized returns. Just look at the top posts: they ask "is this the best use of our tax dollars?" as in once UBI is active, such attitudes will immediately seek to reduce it.
- svardilfari 2y ago
  Because the majority of opinion holders are refusing to read and internalize the parent article. You're just echoing sentiments that people make regarding their opinion on typical welfare - which your parent comment already addressed completely. Either TRY and refute those comments or don't comment at all.
  - bsenftner 2y ago
    I read the article. It's a compromise of UBI. The start of the plethora of confusion diluting the concept, part of the eventual destruction of the idea.
- 542354234235 2y ago
  To point 1, how does receiving, say, $1,000 a month remove hope and prevent bettering oneself? Anyone receiving UBI can still get a job to get additional money. Anyone already working is still receiving their salary. I would not stop trying to promote and make more money, let alone quit my job because I was receiving an extra grand a month. Just like suddenly not having to pay for healthcare and having that extra money in my pocket wouldn’t disincentivize me. On point 2, the idea that UBI is parasitism and corporate handouts are not is ridiculous. UBI is basically the same as a stock dividend paid to shareholders, where everyone owns one “share” of the country, with all of its natural resources, infrastructure, trade, etc (something literally done in Alaska already with oil revenue). Taxes already go to things an individual will not personally use or directly benefit from, but the aggregate is a benefit to all. The highway system for example, where any individual strip of road may or may not “make more” than it costs, but the system of transit benefits everyone. Eliminating (relative) extreme poverty, and all of its criminal, health, productivity loss ills that come with it, while also reducing the massive cost to manage, check, and enforce means tested assistance is a net benefit.