4 ms·

The wealthy would fight tooth and nail against this as it threatens their positions of power. If their needs are met, who would toil for them to earn meager amo

The wealthy would fight tooth and nail against this as it threatens their positions of power. If their needs are met, who would toil for them to earn meager amounts of money just so that they can eat and have a roof over their head? Capitalism depends on a class of people that only has one mean of survival: to under sell their labor and time to employers. Closing off of the commons and the privatization of public lands accomplished this a few centuries ago. Giving the common people a basic income rolls back the stronghold the capitalist has on society. Check out Citigroup's leaked Plutonomy paper[1]. It's details, in disgustingly congratulatory terms, such a stronghold. It is also a literal dictionary definition of conspiracy to maintain a political, economical, and societal control of their financial position. [1] http://mathbabe.org/2012/08/30/citigroups-plutonomy-memos/ http://mathbabe.org/2012/08/30/citigroups-plutonomy-memos/ - you will have to check some popular bittorrent sites to find the full paper.

dnautics 13y ago
I disagree. The wealthy and politically powerful would fight tooth and nail FOR this to consolidate their position of power, by grabbing subsidies for whatever products they provide, which they will fight to classify as "basic needs" and overbill the government for it, or bail them out when their product goes into downturn. For example: In such a future, farmers might claim that food is a "basic need" and fight to get subsidies, and when their food crop goes out of style, they may get the politicians to subsidize their land to go fallow. Or even to the point where their unhealthy crop would be overproduced relative to demand and sold to the public as a a part of a "healthy diet", leading to obesity and widespread medical problem. In such a future, doctors may claim that all of their medical procedures are a "basic need", and fight for a billing system that bills by procedure - to the point of requiring people to purchase coverage for procedures they will likely not need, and leading to unnecessary and risky medical procedures being performed on patients, with an untransparent pricing structure, leading to cost overruns that are an albatross on society. In such a future, bankers may claim that access to financial systems is a "basic need", and when their malfeasance results in systemic economic collapse, they fight for a rescue package that soaks them in money forcibly taken from the public. And in this future, sadly, the truly needy will always find a way to be unhelped by the wealthy and politically powerful (even some who are well-intentioned) who have captured the machinery and redefined "basic need" to their benefit.
- consonants 13y ago
  I doubt any person in power would advocate such a radical shift that could possibly alter their favorable status quo. As the Citigroup papers says, the current political and social environment almost solely serves the the interests of wealthy, and for that they are elated. They fear that a social movement that shifts the focus of the national narrative towards any kind of reduction in inequality would drastically alter the ecosystem in which they are the apex predator. To extrapolate, if it becomes politically viable to advocate a basic income for the people, then the narrative has shifted towards reducing inequality and that is a direct threat to the plutonomy they enjoy. Why risk the narrative when you can already suck on the government teat through contracting, subsidies, and political donations? Shuffling wealth around introduces too much uncertainty.
  - dnautics 13y ago
    If you give government the control over everyone's pursestrings, then you are giving the opportunity or advantage to someone. Shuffling wealth around does introduce uncertainty - when it is the many-headed public that is doing the shuffling it via individual and group transactions, sometimes for-profit, sometimes charitably. When you are contracting out through a single entity (the government) that is when you create certainty that the already-privileged will find far easier to get an advantageous audience with and therefore, far easier to capture.
    - loceng 13y ago
      Why not shuffle and give advantage to the government? Make the someone being the collective people?
      - dnautics 13y ago
        We do this shuffling already, "in the name of the people". How's that working out? "By a continuing process of inflation, governments can confiscate, secretly and unobserved, an important part of the wealth of their citizens. By this method they not only confiscate, but they confiscate arbitrarily; and, while the process impoverishes many, it actually enriches some. The sight of this arbitrary rearrangement of riches strikes not only at security, but at confidence in the equity of the existing distribution of wealth. Those to whom the system brings windfalls, beyond their deserts and even beyond their expectations or desires, become 'profiteers,' who are the object of the hatred of the bourgeoisie, whom the inflationism has impoverished, not less than of the proletariat...Lenin was certainly right. There is no subtler, no surer means of overturning the existing basis of society than to debauch the currency. The process engages all the hidden forces of economic law on the side of destruction, and does it in a manner which not one man in a million is able to diagnose." - John Maynard Keynes
loceng 13y ago
It isn't their position for 'power' they're fighting for, they'd be fighting to maintain control. Control isn't power. And honestly those who are currently in control will still be in a better position resources wise than the majority of the world - so they could be smart about re-allocating their resources, or they could be dumb about it. Your premise that if people's needs are met they will do nothing I feel is plain wrong - people will be bored then, and there are other societal pressures that can drive people to do, to improve themselves, to be productive. Want to be an attractive mate? Want to be an interesting person? Want to be more attractive (not talking just physical of course) and a more interesting person than other contenders? People and animals through evolution get enough of what they need to perpetuate their species forward - humans with out abilities for creating machines to automate processes and make our own lives practically infinitely more productive (and for the whole world) really changes, and I'd argue, lowers what minimum amount of work each of us actually need to do in service of others (to take care of others) - though we might as well make and incentivize all of the work we do (including education) towards what is good and what is in service for others; If everyone's working towards taking care of everyone else, then you'll be taken care of very well. :) Capitalism itself we now know and have learned is great for innovation, however not for sustainability - so that is its sickness. It's not difficult to change certain economic cycles to turn capitalism into incentivizing and directing resources into a positive cycle for everyone to benefit - it's a matter of identifying the leading metrics and affecting them through policy. Land being given away got people being productive, so that's the leading metric there - we need to incentivize and help people be passionate about something, to enjoy doing things, so they do them - become productive. I don't think it's directly either that it giving people a basic income alone really breaks the 'stronghold' the capitalist has. The issue you have to watch out for is if you de-incentivize capitalistic behaviour then people might not do jobs that we need. You have to manage the ecosystem, and not control it - though what businesses do, is control, and that causes problems -- and by managing you allow natural cycles to show themselves, and then can guide them as you discover and need to direct them (if they indeed need some direction due to negative impact / a negative cycle for society exists). Re: Citigroup Plutonomy paper - Neat. I knew these structures existed, though not the source. The way things got done was whoever has more resources amassed who then can leverage them for their own gain -- if that's what they want (and that's usually only time they'll spend their resources/money, though government should be leveraging resources for their own gain; giving land away initially was useful because it was a strong enough incentive to get activity happening). This is similarly what things like the stock market allows, companies to amass large sums of money. FTA, "But as yet, there seems little political fight being born out on this battleground." This is language of karma. The effects of karma takes time to happen sometimes, for organization to occur - and of course as they state, you're fighting compliance of a mass market who mostly have enough to just get by - and it's perpetuated this way and always floats around this because businesses will adjust their price points/profit level based on people's demands, and there are certain things people require; We'll really be in trouble when for-profit driven motives cause certain resources to be no longer available - one of which being a healthy environment that we're allowing to be polluted. Capitalistic cycles are in a controlled-negative cycle. It doesn't take a lot of policy to shift this to positive cycles to start being self-perpetuating, however there will be backlash/hate/fear from the status quo who want to maintain. I think the education and awareness required of society is such that it can happen relatively quickly - the internet is providing such a platform. Also FTA, "To this end, the cleaning up of business practice, by high-profile champions of fair play, might actually prolong plutonomy." This is funny because they're not really doing this to the degree they should in the U.S. - so perhaps they're shooting themselves in the foot - which is good news for society that no one really seems at the wheel of this way of living, they may all be doing their part individually - but without a visionary leading then a plan in the opposite direction can occur with relatively little pushback.

dnautics 13y ago

I disagree. The wealthy and politically powerful would fight tooth and nail FOR this to consolidate their position of power, by grabbing subsidies for whatever products they provide, which they will fight to classify as "basic needs" and overbill the government for it, or bail them out when their product goes into downturn. For example: In such a future, farmers might claim that food is a "basic need" and fight to get subsidies, and when their food crop goes out of style, they may get the politicians to subsidize their land to go fallow. Or even to the point where their unhealthy crop would be overproduced relative to demand and sold to the public as a a part of a "healthy diet", leading to obesity and widespread medical problem. In such a future, doctors may claim that all of their medical procedures are a "basic need", and fight for a billing system that bills by procedure - to the point of requiring people to purchase coverage for procedures they will likely not need, and leading to unnecessary and risky medical procedures being performed on patients, with an untransparent pricing structure, leading to cost overruns that are an albatross on society. In such a future, bankers may claim that access to financial systems is a "basic need", and when their malfeasance results in systemic economic collapse, they fight for a rescue package that soaks them in money forcibly taken from the public. And in this future, sadly, the truly needy will always find a way to be unhelped by the wealthy and politically powerful (even some who are well-intentioned) who have captured the machinery and redefined "basic need" to their benefit.

consonants 13y ago
I doubt any person in power would advocate such a radical shift that could possibly alter their favorable status quo. As the Citigroup papers says, the current political and social environment almost solely serves the the interests of wealthy, and for that they are elated. They fear that a social movement that shifts the focus of the national narrative towards any kind of reduction in inequality would drastically alter the ecosystem in which they are the apex predator. To extrapolate, if it becomes politically viable to advocate a basic income for the people, then the narrative has shifted towards reducing inequality and that is a direct threat to the plutonomy they enjoy. Why risk the narrative when you can already suck on the government teat through contracting, subsidies, and political donations? Shuffling wealth around introduces too much uncertainty.
- dnautics 13y ago
  If you give government the control over everyone's pursestrings, then you are giving the opportunity or advantage to someone. Shuffling wealth around does introduce uncertainty - when it is the many-headed public that is doing the shuffling it via individual and group transactions, sometimes for-profit, sometimes charitably. When you are contracting out through a single entity (the government) that is when you create certainty that the already-privileged will find far easier to get an advantageous audience with and therefore, far easier to capture.
  - loceng 13y ago
    Why not shuffle and give advantage to the government? Make the someone being the collective people?
    - dnautics 13y ago
      We do this shuffling already, "in the name of the people". How's that working out? "By a continuing process of inflation, governments can confiscate, secretly and unobserved, an important part of the wealth of their citizens. By this method they not only confiscate, but they confiscate arbitrarily; and, while the process impoverishes many, it actually enriches some. The sight of this arbitrary rearrangement of riches strikes not only at security, but at confidence in the equity of the existing distribution of wealth. Those to whom the system brings windfalls, beyond their deserts and even beyond their expectations or desires, become 'profiteers,' who are the object of the hatred of the bourgeoisie, whom the inflationism has impoverished, not less than of the proletariat...Lenin was certainly right. There is no subtler, no surer means of overturning the existing basis of society than to debauch the currency. The process engages all the hidden forces of economic law on the side of destruction, and does it in a manner which not one man in a million is able to diagnose." - John Maynard Keynes

loceng 13y ago

It isn't their position for 'power' they're fighting for, they'd be fighting to maintain control. Control isn't power. And honestly those who are currently in control will still be in a better position resources wise than the majority of the world - so they could be smart about re-allocating their resources, or they could be dumb about it. Your premise that if people's needs are met they will do nothing I feel is plain wrong - people will be bored then, and there are other societal pressures that can drive people to do, to improve themselves, to be productive. Want to be an attractive mate? Want to be an interesting person? Want to be more attractive (not talking just physical of course) and a more interesting person than other contenders? People and animals through evolution get enough of what they need to perpetuate their species forward - humans with out abilities for creating machines to automate processes and make our own lives practically infinitely more productive (and for the whole world) really changes, and I'd argue, lowers what minimum amount of work each of us actually need to do in service of others (to take care of others) - though we might as well make and incentivize all of the work we do (including education) towards what is good and what is in service for others; If everyone's working towards taking care of everyone else, then you'll be taken care of very well. :) Capitalism itself we now know and have learned is great for innovation, however not for sustainability - so that is its sickness. It's not difficult to change certain economic cycles to turn capitalism into incentivizing and directing resources into a positive cycle for everyone to benefit - it's a matter of identifying the leading metrics and affecting them through policy. Land being given away got people being productive, so that's the leading metric there - we need to incentivize and help people be passionate about something, to enjoy doing things, so they do them - become productive. I don't think it's directly either that it giving people a basic income alone really breaks the 'stronghold' the capitalist has. The issue you have to watch out for is if you de-incentivize capitalistic behaviour then people might not do jobs that we need. You have to manage the ecosystem, and not control it - though what businesses do, is control, and that causes problems -- and by managing you allow natural cycles to show themselves, and then can guide them as you discover and need to direct them (if they indeed need some direction due to negative impact / a negative cycle for society exists). Re: Citigroup Plutonomy paper - Neat. I knew these structures existed, though not the source. The way things got done was whoever has more resources amassed who then can leverage them for their own gain -- if that's what they want (and that's usually only time they'll spend their resources/money, though government should be leveraging resources for their own gain; giving land away initially was useful because it was a strong enough incentive to get activity happening). This is similarly what things like the stock market allows, companies to amass large sums of money. FTA, "But as yet, there seems little political fight being born out on this battleground." This is language of karma. The effects of karma takes time to happen sometimes, for organization to occur - and of course as they state, you're fighting compliance of a mass market who mostly have enough to just get by - and it's perpetuated this way and always floats around this because businesses will adjust their price points/profit level based on people's demands, and there are certain things people require; We'll really be in trouble when for-profit driven motives cause certain resources to be no longer available - one of which being a healthy environment that we're allowing to be polluted. Capitalistic cycles are in a controlled-negative cycle. It doesn't take a lot of policy to shift this to positive cycles to start being self-perpetuating, however there will be backlash/hate/fear from the status quo who want to maintain. I think the education and awareness required of society is such that it can happen relatively quickly - the internet is providing such a platform. Also FTA, "To this end, the cleaning up of business practice, by high-profile champions of fair play, might actually prolong plutonomy." This is funny because they're not really doing this to the degree they should in the U.S. - so perhaps they're shooting themselves in the foot - which is good news for society that no one really seems at the wheel of this way of living, they may all be doing their part individually - but without a visionary leading then a plan in the opposite direction can occur with relatively little pushback.