Strong brainwashed ******* detected. Do you even brain?

Took honors economics in high school...academic decathalon.

The thing is we do not have an unfettered free market with winners and losers. We have a corrupted welfare state.

Some of that welfare is paid to the elderly, sick, children, and, yes, a few able-bodied adults that aren't supporting themselves (though most people don't rely on benefits long term).

And some of that welfare is paid to business directly (subsidies, use of public resources at an unfairly low cost, bail outs, etc.) and some is paid indirectly in the form of paying government benefits to employees with wages that do not cover what the government has decided is a basic standard of living.

The market is also distorted by regulation, a lot of which doesn't seem to have much to do with fairness or public safety, but is more about established businesses and bureaucracies protecting their fiefdoms.

FWIW my estimation is that we would need a minimum wage around $11.50 an hour. In some areas where $7.25 is prevalent that would be a big jump, but in states that already have a higher minimum it wouldn't be as big a change. Also, by pegging the wage to a formula that is based on the federal poverty line theoretically it would just adjust annually.

Propensity to consume, in economic parlance.

The shift from savings to consumption isn't inherently negative-sum and depends on the state of the economy. Where the economy loses from reduced investment (wealthy saves more than the poor), it gains from increased consumption (as the poor consume at higher rates than the wealthy). Savings aren't worth anything if no one consumes the products of your investment, if you will.

You could assume whatever redistribution happens is suboptimal, as it involves re-allocation of resources based on some non-market, arbitrary parameter (in this case, the UBI taxes and payouts). Economic efficiency isn't exactly why people advocate for UBI, however.

HAHAHAHA! How are you 31 years old and still THIS ignorant about how the world works? brb if I work hard and spend responsibly, I too can be born into the Rothschild family!

Just LMAO @ "how hard the 1% works". The 1% is very similar to the bottom 10% in the fact that most of them are completely useless pieces of chit that have never done a day's work in their life and contribute nothing to society, completely living off handouts.

I'm specifically referring to families in which literal generations of people have never had to work, living their ultra-luxurious lives off of the income from investments and real estate that their ancestors procured. I don't know if you've ever directly interacted with people from those families, I have several times and like I said, many of them are very much like the bottom 10% in terms of uselessness.

Just LMAO if you think they "deserve" their wealth because they "earned it". The 1% is basically like a modern day feudal system, only a retard would defend the wealth gap continuing to increase as being a good thing. Most of the wealth in this country is possessed by just a handful of families and you have these brain dead minimum wage earning miscers that have no idea how the system works defending it. "But hey, maybe if I lick their boots hard enough, I will end up rich like those kids that got born into those families!" (they think with their retard-brains).

To be clear, I'm not saying I'm in favor of UBI, but to act like the current system is not completely broken is just utter buffoonery. Something needs to be done to curtail the power and wealth monopoly of the pseudo-royalty elite families in this country and I like the idea of thinking outside of the box to think of ways this can be done.

I really don't understand why so many poverty ass miscers with their lack of high school diploma and sub-50k a year income don't understand how this is a big problem and cheerlead for the 1%, thinking they will just magically get there someday. I have a post-grad degree and have a white collar job in the finance industry, every single one of my peers that I talk to about this fully agrees with me about this..... maybe it's just something you need a higher-than-middle-school-level understanding of finance to grasp

Literally nobody in here has stated they think they're somehow going to join the elite by working hard, or by "licking their boots", not that that's what anyone is doing. That said, I don't know why people always bitch about how unfair it is that many of the 1%'ers got their wealth handed down from their ancestors. Why does that bother you? You're SUPPOSED to do well, and set your progeny up for success. That's what people are supposed to do. The only answer I can think of as to why this bothers you, and the other pissant crybabies who bitch about the 1% incessantly is that you're jealous, and you want what they have.. and you want the Government to steal it, and give it to you. IDC if the current Rothschilds' earned their wealth, or if it was passed down to them from their great, great, great, great ancestor. Someone in their family earned it, and now they get to live the good life as a result. Tough **** if you can't make the same happen for yourself, it's not their fault and it's not their problem. We should all be so lucky as to be able to set our kids up for lifelong success and financial independence.

No.... we DON'T. What we have is a system in which the people in charge tell the sheep that the bolded is how the economy works, and the sheep (like you) blindly parrot their words, feeling proud and intellectual for doing so, without actually using their brains to analyze whether it is accurate.

If it WERE an accurate statement, then why did the government have to intervene to save the economy after the Great Depression? Why didn't the market just "correct itself"? Why did the government have to bail out the banks to prevent the global economy from collapsing into chaos during the housing crisis? Why is the government giving subsidies to billionaires to build sports stadiums and why do lobbyists have so much power over politicians regarding government regulations/subsidies for private industries?

I work in finance too and it is mind blowing how many broke retards think they're on their way to upper class since they don't call out for their shifts or buy new iphones. In B4 "stupid school can't you more smarter!"

We are not going to have a total economic collapse from automation. That is utter BS. Under improved productivity from automation, we would have massive price deflation which would make even the poorest members of society able to afford ****. Brb, buying a brand new car for $50. Brb feeding my family high quality food for a nickel a day. Once automation really takes off, chit's gonna get extremely cheap, and you'll be able to stretch your money so far it'll be unbelievable, assuming we don't enact retard policies like UBI that would generate massive price inflation.

Our primary concern at the moment is the mountains of government debt and our current economic bubble. If interest rates rise even a little bit on our $20 trillion dollar debt, the budget gets fukked.

And while the government's budget is getting nuked, the economy is also imploding as all of our debt driven businesses can't acquire cheap credit to kick their over-levered businesses going.

If we had interest rates anywhere near what we had in the 1980's the entire federal budget would be consumed by interest payments alone.

Oh Jesus..... this is why I try not to discuss economy/finance with people making minimum wage... I'm not going to address most of what you wrote, because it was laughably stupid and your utter lack of reading comprehension would make it pointless to respond, anyway. Only part of it I will address is that if the government "stole their money", they wouldn't be giving it to ME, I make too high an income too qualify for any wealth redistribution program they could make.

I just see it as morally wrong that a certain segment of the population that does nothing to earn the money that they have, continues to leach an exponentially increasing proportion of the nation's wealth from the rest.

But I would like to ask you a final question, just because I'm sure your response is going to be as hilarious as your above post.... What do YOU think is the primary reason that the wealth gap between the 1% and everyone else has continued to increase at an exponentially higher rate for about the last 30 years? Is it because they have decided to work harder during this time while everyone else has decided to work less harder?

UBI is a horrible idea. It leans too much toward socialism, which is an incompetent economic system and cannot work. I do not accept the dipshiz narrator's theory that poor people using drugs is a stereotype. Those who need handouts are generally lazy, addicts, or made huge idiot decisions like spitting 5 kids out of their gashes. These kind of degenerates need to be kicked to the curb and banished from society, like leper colonies.

This is going to be my last post in this thread, but I will leave you with a question as well. Would you define "a system that works" as "one that literally brought the world's economy to the brink of ruin a few years ago"? I'm going to hang up now and listen to your answer over the air

LOL fukking idiotic statement. The government intervention in the Great Depression prolonged the Great Depression. FDR didn't end the Great Depression.

Funny how in 1921 we had a massive crash that was even worse than Black Thursday, and a massive economic recession, collapsing demand, rapid deflation and high interest rates. The government under President Harding didn't intervene in the economy at all. Literally all they did was pass government spending cuts, the complete opposite of what was done in the Great Depression. It only lasted a year, and we had a rapid recovery that more than made up for the losses, and nobody learns about that event in school because everything turned out fine.

Fast Forward to 1929, we have a less severe stock market crash, drop in demand, etc... and Herbert Hoover immediately goes full Keynesian with government Programs, then FDR follows suit and expands on Hoovers idiocy, and it turns into the longest recession in US history. Anybody would call that a ****ing failure, but all the socialists tout it as a big whopping success and we all learn in school about how glorious FDR was for saving the economy from the big evil capitalists.

The market fixes itself, bureaucratic interventionists fuk everything up.

You just ignored everything about markets setting wages. When you set a minimum wage it kills jobs. Before the minimum wage laws there were jobs for people pumping gas at gas stations, they didn't provide $7.25 an hour in value, but they provided some value and it was good experience as a first job for them learning work ethic. When you set the minimum wage at $11.25, businesses are not going to start paying someone that only provides $10 an hour worth of value the higher wage. The business will just fire them and automate it, either that or the business will go bankrupt and everyone loses their job. A real life example is some of my virtual assistants that do a very simple job, that is tedious but takes no skill, anyone can do it. i pay them $5 an hour outsourced to foreign freelancers in non regulated countries. If you were to tell me I had to pay them $11.25 I would just stop hiring them, because it would be unprofitable for me to pay that wage for the value they provide me. They would be out a job, my business would suffer, lose/lose for all parties. I agree with you completely about the mismanagement of our tax dollars via government programs, a corrupted welfare state, and about markets being distorted by unjust regulations, but why then would you think the answer is MORE REGULATION!? Makes no sense, you identify some of the problems, but then your answer to the problem is more government?? Again listen to Thomas Sowell talk on youtube if that will hold your attention better, or Milton Freedman. Just because you graduated high school doesn't mean you should stop learning, and from what I've deduced from your talking points you have much to learn still

You're grossly misinformed on the nature of economics if the above is your genuine opinion and thinking. It clearly assumes that businesses are entirely efficient entities and that value is directly linked to workings. I.e. if an employee provides X amount of value, the business entity, in all of its efficiencies, will always produce an accurate profit based directly, and solely on the value said employee brings. I'm sure I don't need to explain to you how stupid and removed from reality that logic is. It's naive to think any such entity is this efficient.

While some in this thread have discussed this topic from interesting and valid points, you seem to simply be harking back to this notion of loosely tying UBI and a negative income tax to Marxism. You insinuate that Marxism, as an extreme, is all but evil, yet you forget that all economies, big or small, lie on a spectrum, and that extremes in either direction, are not sustainable. Every society and economy has aspects of socialism in place, be it by intentional design, or convergence.

Some of us are aware of your e-book selling. Simply because you pay others to write harlequin novels and stories, while you market and sell said e-books, does not mean you now understand the workings of grander businesses and entities, yet alone economics. Your naivety and experience is rather transparent if you truly believe in your comment that "your income is directly based off the value you bring". Such a statement is vapid, and is horrendously superficial. You should understand that value is relative; a teacher is unlike a stripper who is unlike a doctor who is unlike someone who sells sex stories or t-shirts on Amazon.

In short, your posts throughout this thread seem to be manifestation of a basic fallacy of success/self-serving bias, where one believes the success they've garnered is entirely due to one's self, and not due to external factors -circumstance or fortune. It's the opposite of the problem on the other end of the spectrum, where one believes the failures and problems they endure, are entirely due to external factors(circumstance and the like), and have nothing to do with themselves.
To top it off, many of the arguments made by you, and others in this thread take the viewpoint of an isolationist economy, devoid of the systemic issues currently dealt with today; arguments presented from a purist viewpoint, or an arbitrary view of an ideal economy based on set values and beliefs. This is not the world we live:

Economies are interconnected in manners and ways people are oblivious to. Protectionism, tariffs, and trade agreements that are the anti-thesis to capitalism and free markets. Policies and laws doled out to the highest bidder via lobbying.

These arguments are devoid of the realities we live in. Nothing more than coffee-house discussions of theory, far removed from practice. Even worse, a good number of the arguments in this thread fall directly into the naturalistic fallacy (is-ought), which stems from an unabashed self serving bias.

I believe welfare has caused more problems than it has solved, and people will be better off without it in the long run, and that a negative tax system is the means for which to wean societies off such systems. I also don't believe all are equal, and that enacting policies to enforce equality will generally do more harm than good. But this does not mean that I'm naive to think that the current systems in place, steeped in years of idiotic policy making, misuse, and ill-formed perversions doesn't need to deal appropriately with the issues it's currently plagued with, and the issues it's currently caused. It's completely transparent when one wants to shut the door behind themselves, as soon as they've made it in. Sadly, it seems many are blind to their own behaviour in this matter.


EDIT:Again, this notion of "it was like this before, so it should be like that now" is nothing more than idealistic. It does nothing to paint a solution or road-map as to how to get there, and is incredibly naive to think that economies are isolationist, and that simply reversing things will somehow correct all the problems.

This is far too simplistic of a view, and is almost child-like


EDIT EDIT:I completely agree. But very few people will truly accept the above and stick to that logic; right and left-wing alike.

Hence why republicans/conservatives have no issues with protectionism, tariffs, and the like, and liberals/democrats will be happy to leave them in place.

It essentially boils down to a catalogue of what people prefer, and as such, economies will always need meddling once it's started

in a nutshell, this.

surrender all your rights for basic sustenance.

It seems this thread got derailed badly.

The point is to look at UBI and NIT, with the latter being of importance in correcting the welfare problem, and incentivising the right behaviours and outcomes.

Your income is a direct reflection of the value you contribute to others. Fact. If someone did not think the book or shirt I sell is worth more than 'X' amount of dollars then they would not make that voluntary exchange. If I sell $100,000 worth of t shirts it is because enough people made a voluntary exchange out of their own free will. Value IS relative, so just because you don't think "sex stories" or "shirts" are a valid business, doesn't mean squat, because there is a huge market for both, and millions of customers obviously value that content more than you. You should understand scale, a teacher that only teaches a classroom has limited value they can add due to geography. There are teachers in South Korea that make millions a year, because people pay to watch their class via internet video feed. I make the income I make because enough people find the content I create valuable enough to warrant my income.Long post not gonna take the time to reply to every point, but since this is the self described jist of it, you have made a false assumption about me. I do not believe my success in business is entirely due to myself. I was fortunate to be lucky enough to have the genetics and environment I was born into. The mentors I had, ect. There were millions of things that could have happened different that could have changed the outcome of my life drastically, and I acknowledge how much luck has to do with anyones success.

But yea, if business and economics is so easy and you know so much...put your knowledge to practice, start a business and add value to society, srs. Talk is cheap.

So many people in this thread thinking UBI is the devil and is entirely different than the entitlement programs already in place...not sheriff srs

We already have an entitled society, but at least with UBI they can't complain about programs anymore and you wouldn't have to worry about government oversight and waste within the programs. That's a huge plus and a huge savings right there. I'm not saying it's the answer, but I think it's something worth exploring. I'm sure consumer corporations will be all for it. More income from uneducated and skill-less people. However, this might also create an economy that is more stable.

people who support the idea of basic income are naive little children, who will get whats coming to them.



do you really think that the world's ELITE want to fund your existence, so you can keep whining, complaining, stuffing your greedy mouths with food, and competing for valuable real estate, and beachfront properties, and the world's resources in general?

Why do you think the worlds elite will keep you alive? you aren't special.

The fact is..... when technology reaches a point where most of the world's population doesn't have a job...... then expect POPULATION REDUCTION. The worlds elite will kill off BILLIONS of people. They will start wars. They will spread diseases. They will sterilize people.... there's a million ways that they can pull this off. War is the obvious one. But also, stuff like "Global Warming" .... they'll blame overpopulation and declare a need to control birth rates in order to bring the population numbers down. China already did this. You think you're special that it won't happen to you in America, or in Europe?



When you outlive your usefulness...... the world's elite have NO obligation to keep you alive. I have no idea why you think it's a good idea to be completely dependent on the government to survive. This is the HEIGHT of STUPIDITY and naivete.

BIG Government is inherently EVIL and has always been so.

The government DOESN'T PRODUCE WEALTH. They don't produce ANYTHING. So where is the $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$ coming from?

You have to steal from PRODUCERS to give to NON-PRODUCERS. Basic Income is wealth redistribution. Unless you think Money grows on magic government trees?


Do you people not even see the dangers of turning the Human Population into nothing more than a herd of cattle that is completely dependent on Government for it's very sustenance? Kiss goodbye to every single freedom you thought you had. And get ready for population reduction. And the return of Eugenics. Imagine Basic Income under a President like Obama. If you think the wrong opinion.... NO CHECK FOR YOU. No food for you.

No. 330+ million people getting 12k a year is not savings. Do the math on that one...I'll wait

Hint, it's greater than the federal tax revenue of 3.65 trillion. How is more than all the federal tax revenue collected going to just this one thing savings? You are legit talking out your azz. Where is this money going to come from?

inb4 tax the producers 100%...

we should have 1% of people living the best lives possible while the rest suffer in poverty.

itt: a bunch of people whose economic education extends to about econ 101

you have no idea what poverty is.

read a book and find out how 99% of your ancestors lived.

you live like a King by comparison.

Current welfare spending in the US - $1.03 Trillion (sauce:https://www.budget.senate.gov/downlo...federal-budget)

current US population - 326 million (https://www.census.gov/popclock/)

let's write thos enumbers out

welfare - $1,030,000,000,000

population - 326,000,000

current welfare per US person = 1.03T / 3.26M = $3,159 per year

No one really knows how much a UBI "should" be to pay for living costs or whatever, but if it is any more than $3,159 per year (including whatever admin costs the budget office included in calculations) then it is already more spending.

It wouldn't create a "stable" economy - economic stability comes when we abandon fiat in favour of sound money again.

It's very tempting to believe that economic growth comes from consumption, after all consumption is fun! And when people consume businesses make profit! But, if you sit in your recliner with your pipe and examine the order of the world you would conclude that it is savings which result in investment and thus economic growth and prosperity. This is through increasing how much stuff is produced which can then be consumed.

Now you're thinking a little more clearly. You've realised that value is relative, whereas in your earlier post, you were speaking in absolute terms.
I did not suggest or allude that selling harlequin novels or t-shirts was not a valid business, you simply assumed that. I was merely showing you that value is relative, whereas your post earlier suggested that value was absolute.
Now you've gone ahead and opened up another can of idiotic worms discussing scale as it pertains to teachers, but we'll let that slide as you're simply misusing it to try and show that younowrealise that value is relative. I'll do you the favour and not lecture you more on this point.
I suggest you read my post, as the portion you're responding it is but a small point I make, and it only relates to one aspect of your illogical attempts, whereas my other points deal with the more sound arguments others have had.

But to the above, I'm glad you realise your success is not entirely due to your own doing, and that you external factors played their part into providing you with what you have today. But you missed some crucial points I made, or else you would understand what I said and why I said it.I thought you were able to learn that value is relative? I guess you didn't read my post properly, or perhaps the lesson was lost on you as you crafted this response of yours. Now with the above comment, you're back to showing your ignorance for all to see with the suggestion that a business is the way to add value to society. What if I want to add value to society through other means? Perhaps I'm a practicing doctor? A teacher? What if I already own a business and generate a healthy profit that allows me to misc when I want and work no more than 20 hours a week to support myself and my family?

You've mentioned that external factors helped you get to where you've gotten to today, and that you're lucky for them..then to suggest that I need to do the same? It's as if you don't understand what you're saying, and that you imagine external factors such as "genetics and the environment you're born into" are the same for me?

You need to make up your mind as to which side of the argument you're going to argue.

To top it all off, you suggest I made assumptions about you, you then go ahead and make assumptions about me? I genuinely hate to do this, but you can't maintain a coherent stance, and it's painful to watch.



Seriously, read my post. All the points I've made build on one another. For you to pick one or two that you feel are in your comfort zone to argue against (poorly, mind you), only to show that you remain as ignorant as you were when crafting the loosely jumbled, and largely unsound and illogical arguments you've made, does nothing to further any discussion along.

As you've said to ironmanlet earlier on in the thread: "If you want to be respected direct your criticism at my position, make a logical rebuttal..."

LOL if you really believe that whatever amount the govt provides (by taking from others) for UBI would EVER be enough. Some people would be responsible with that money, but far too many would use it to lease a new car they can't afford, buy satellite tv, take vacations they can't afford, lease an apartment or buy a house they can't really afford . . . and then they'll be in the streets railing against the 1% again demanding more. Rinse and repeat.

This.

The fuking poor in the West today live greater than royalty 500 years ago. They live in temperature controlled rooms, have light with the flip of a finger, can access the accumulated human knowledge at the tip of a finger, can talk to someone across the world at moments notice. The poor in the West are OVERWEIGHT, in the past only royalty were overweight. Entitled *******s want everything handed to them.

"Hard time create strong men, strong men create good times, good times create weak men, weak men create hard times"

It's a vicious cycle, and like just about everything else it happens in cycles...right now we have alot of weak men, prepping for the collapse.

In a free market people are paid based on the value they provide. Teachers and doctors do not operate in a free market. Teachers in the US are paid by and their salaries set by the state. (As I mentioned earlier teachers in SK have a free market, and the better teachers make millions) The medical industry is HIGHLY regulated, not a free market at all, so both their salaries are skewed because of regulation/government. Doctors in disciplines not covered by insurance for example can make many times more than other doctors (i.e plastic surgeons) I never claimed that starting a business is the only way to add value to society, another false assumption on your part, as there are many ways to include teachers and doctors. The reason I even suggested you start a business is because you were criticising my businesses. You can read all the theory you want, and have discourse about your ideas, it's a entirely different thing to actually do it. And if you are successful and you do add value to society then good for you, I mean that, that's the type of people we want. But, tbh you come off as very bitter. If you want any advice, and want to actually learn something, can pm me. I actually don't mind helping people that are open and eager to learn and grow, I've mentored many people as a way to give back.Yea, I was lucky to be born healthy, in a nuclear family that supported me till I was 18, and in America.

You can read and write in English, you have access to the internet. If you are healthy, then you are already in the top 20%. You have everything you need to start a business, or become a doctor, or work towards whatever you want. We create our own purpose in life, create yours.

I suggest you read my initial post from earlier, instead of dodging the relevant points I've made. You'll see that all your arguments, and plenty more in this thread have been dealt with appropriately, and rationally, and it will save you some time, instead of continuing down some nonsensicle train of thought regarding the broader points of economics that don't deal with the issues of UBI or NIT discussed in this thread.

You've missed the point again, and are taking my initial rebuttal to heart. I was simply showing you that you were wrong in the posts you made, which I quoted and responded, in the claims you made about value; I simply chose to use your means of income as an example, and you're now off on the tangent you're currently on.

Again, read my initial post, and you'll be able to see the valid points I've made, and can provide your own counter arguments. Until then, you really are going off a tangent with your non-relevant ramblings of the free market of South Korean teachers.

I make mid-range middle class earnings. There goes your whole premise.

For your final question, I don't care that there's a wealth gap. It doesn't hurt anyone. Just because some people have a huge amount of wealth doesn't mean you too can't be successful (even if that doesn't mean being uber rich, and just means reaching the middle class).