Mark Zuckerberg Calls for Universal Basic Income in Harvard Commencement Speech

tru that...these young dumbasses don't know what socialism or communism is...they think they can make them work better than Lenin , Stalin , Mao , Pol Pot...they are gonna have to kill about 100 million to do it better than them...
I'm curious how you define socialism in respect to countries like Norway and Sweden. Last I checked, they haven't killed 100 million people in the name of socialism.

That's what you get when socialism is programmed into peoples minds to be equivalent to communism. But considering that Bernie was a socialist and he was near to beating Hillary, and would have beat Trump had the democrats not work against him, America would have a socialist president right about now.

The more Trump fucks up, the more likely the next president is going to be socialist. Look at the choices the right had to represent them. Ted Cruz is a laughing joke on the internet, and Paul Ryan is... well look. Hillary lost cause she's really a Republican in disguise among other things.
I really wouldn't count on a socialist candidate in the future. We have a two party system and like you said, the democrats worked against Sanders to make sure he didn't get anywhere, and will do so again to any actual progressive candidates in the future. At this point, the democrats are essentially paid to lose, so the way politics looks right now is what you can likely expect for many years to come.
 
So much entitlement in this thread, it delivers!
NOT.

UBI will never happen.
Can't believe there is even an abbreviation for this "entitlement".
 
"I'm curious how you define socialism in respect to countries like Norway and Sweden. Last I checked, they haven't killed 100 million people in the name of socialism."


not to hard...

"There are a couple of things wrong with the Left’s romance with these countries, as Swedish analyst Nima Sanandaji notes in a recent monograph. It doesn’t fully appreciate the sources of Nordic success, or how Scandinavia has turned away from the socialism so alluring to its international admirers."

"The first thing to know is that Scandinavia is inhabited by Scandinavians, a hardworking, responsible people who have had high levels of social trust and cohesion for a very long time. These are splendid qualities for any place to have. As Sanandaji points out, Scandinavia already had high life expectancy and other health indicators before it expanded its welfare state, and already had more equal societies.You can take the Scandinavians out of Scandinavia, but not the Scandinavia out of the Scandinavians. Sure enough, they have thrived here in the United States outside of their social-democracy hothouse. The descendants of Scandinavian immigrants have median incomes 20 percent higher than the U.S. average, and their poverty rate is half the average, according to Sanandaji."

"No one remembers, but Scandinavia wasn’t always a watchword for social democracy. Indeed, Sweden was such a free-market success story that Republicans should be citing it in their debates. It started as a poor country in the late 19th century, then achieved takeoff under a dynamic capitalist system into the middle of the 20th century. Its boom coincided with the time when its taxes were lower than in the U.S. and the rest of Europe."

"When Bernie Sanders and his ilk hold up Scandinavia as an exemplar, they are really thinking of a couple of decades beginning in the early 1970s when Sweden and others got their full Sanders on."

"In Sweden, the effective marginal tax rate topped 100 percent in some circumstances. There is a reason that IKEA founder Ingvar Kamprad fled the country in 1973. Sweden instituted a scheme to confiscate corporate profits and hand them over to labor unions. The idea was, in the words of a Swedish economist, to have “a market economy without individual capitalists and entrepreneurs.”

"This was about as logical as it sounded — and delivered predictable results. The socialist golden years weren’t so golden for economic performance. Entrepreneurship plummeted. Job creation and wages sputtered. The Scandinavian story the past few decades has been a turn against socialism. Taxes have fallen, and markets have been liberalized. Kamprad returned to Sweden."

"It became obvious that generous-enough welfare benefits can undermine the initiative of even the heartiest Scandinavian stock, and these countries have been adjusting accordingly. An article in the New York Times a couple of years ago recounted the backlash against welfare dependence in Denmark. It cited a study that projected in 2013 that only three of 98 municipalities would have a majority of residents working.

"If no one will mistake these countries for Texas, they allow enough economic openness to stay vibrant. “Scandinavian countries,” Sanandaji writes, “compensate for high taxes and labor market rigidities by following liberal policies in other areas, such as business freedom and openness to trade.” Denmark, of all places, is ranked 11th on the Heritage Foundation’s index of economic freedom, right above the United States. Nothing will undermine the Left’s faith in the Scandinavian model, but Bernie Sanders could learn a thing or two from the reformers in the countries that he so admires. "
 
"socialism isn't communism"...(and other blithering idiocies)...haha

"Somehow, we all have forgotten the words of Karl Marx the father of communism: "The easiest way to kill capitalism is by taxes, taxes and more taxes.""

"Khrushchev, a later day adherent of communism, said this: "We cannot expect Americans to jump from capitalism to communism but we can assist their elected leaders in giving Americans small doses of socialism until they suddenly find out they have communism,"
 
Really it is a pretty bleak situation if the dire predictions come to pass. If you lose 50% of the jobs in the country then you have a lot of people who can't afford to buy anything. On top of that, with a massive tax and redistribution scheme like UBI in place the business sector and the "rich" are taxed heavily to support it. Then those taxes get passed on to the consumer in the form of price increases or worse job cuts. Which just makes the low consumer spending situation even worse.

I don't see how there will be anything left of the middle class.
Well it won't work out exactly as you stated. Firstly as the job market gets worse, new laws can be put in place to help it out. Like restricting the hours someone works per week. This helps promote the hiring of people to fill in those hours. A mandatory lunch hour or two. This keeps employers from exploiting the "lunch hour" that essentially gives them a free bonus hour. Restrict the hours a business can be open. This helps people have more free time for education purposes.

Fifty percent jobs lost to automation won't really mean 50% unemployment with these rules in place. Doesn't change you'll have one hell of a recession going on, and you'll still need UBI. But companies and the wealthy will of course find ways to pass this onto the consumer, but then you have laws to protect this. Like making sure jobs stay in your country or products imported by that company will be taxed instead. I doubt prices will increase so long as you have supply and demand. You can't sell an Xbox Scorpio for $1000 and expect people to buy it. People would stick with their cheap Xbox Ones instead or just not buy them. The only real concern is buying food and fuel as that's a commodity.
 
"socialism isn't communism"...(and other blithering idiocies)...haha

"Somehow, we all have forgotten the words of Karl Marx the father of communism: "The easiest way to kill capitalism is by taxes, taxes and more taxes.""

"Khrushchev, a later day adherent of communism, said this: "We cannot expect Americans to jump from capitalism to communism but we can assist their elected leaders in giving Americans small doses of socialism until they suddenly find out they have communism,"
Karl Marx was born in 1818. Nikita Khrushchev was born in 1894. We're talking about people from 100 years ago. None of them could foresee automation.

 
Delicieuxz

"The money for an UBI program firstly comes from replacing all existing assistance services, and the costly bureaucracy that they require"

hahahahha...ain't gonna happen!...the leeches are sucked tight to their "benefits" , they have never , nor will they ever , give up their current benefits because they currently receive one hell of a lot more money now than any lousy , idiotic 12,000 dollars..you really think those that are gaming the "safety net" systems are that stupid?...who's the pea brain , them or you?...hard to figure people ain't it

example...enrolment in the SNAP program is at an all time high...but..but...but...but..Obama fixed the economy and unemployment (always fudged numbers) is down from 10 to 5 present (because of Obama's economic wizardry I guess) so how come the eligibility requirements haven't been turned backed to the pre-recession level?...because once you give the hand out , the hand stays out...

...by the way , the "Great Recession" was NOT the great recession...that is reserved for the Carter lead recession which gave us 1) double digit unemployment and 2) double digit inflation , AND 3) double digit mortgage interest rates

If you put up a sign that says "Free Hamburgers"...it isn't just the hungry that show up...


None of this makes sense. People who receive benefits are not the ones who decide whether the system will change, and those who legitimately receive benefits will receive more under a UBI program than they do under current programs. Those who game assistance programs do not factor into the decision of whether to implement UBI, or to cancel existing programs, and they can't choose to not give up something they have no control over.
 
UBI replaces all those systems in one go.

Tell me this too, where can a 45 year old who was on a car manufacturing line go when they lose their job? Re-educate and compete against a new grad who's cheaper to pay and faster working? Free-market already says who wins there

People were never meant to work for other people. The people that do are servants to the person that hired them. Time becomes your currency.
A businesses can trade labor or resources as currency, a individual worker cannot. The introduction of corporations and fiat money pushed society as a whole into being servants, trading time for money.
How much is something worth means nothing. What you have to do to own it means everything. This allows society to place a high price on things that make you work more, slave more. Forces you to go to school and do things that don't come natural to you.

A child raised in a family business can do the work taught by their parents. A child raised in a home with parents working jobs has to be taught by society.
 
"I'm curious how you define socialism in respect to countries like Norway and Sweden. Last I checked, they haven't killed 100 million people in the name of socialism."


not to hard...

"There are a couple of things wrong with the Left’s romance with these countries, as Swedish analyst Nima Sanandaji notes in a recent monograph. It doesn’t fully appreciate the sources of Nordic success, or how Scandinavia has turned away from the socialism so alluring to its international admirers."

"The first thing to know is that Scandinavia is inhabited by Scandinavians, a hardworking, responsible people who have had high levels of social trust and cohesion for a very long time. These are splendid qualities for any place to have. As Sanandaji points out, Scandinavia already had high life expectancy and other health indicators before it expanded its welfare state, and already had more equal societies.You can take the Scandinavians out of Scandinavia, but not the Scandinavia out of the Scandinavians. Sure enough, they have thrived here in the United States outside of their social-democracy hothouse. The descendants of Scandinavian immigrants have median incomes 20 percent higher than the U.S. average, and their poverty rate is half the average, according to Sanandaji."

"No one remembers, but Scandinavia wasn’t always a watchword for social democracy. Indeed, Sweden was such a free-market success story that Republicans should be citing it in their debates. It started as a poor country in the late 19th century, then achieved takeoff under a dynamic capitalist system into the middle of the 20th century. Its boom coincided with the time when its taxes were lower than in the U.S. and the rest of Europe."

"When Bernie Sanders and his ilk hold up Scandinavia as an exemplar, they are really thinking of a couple of decades beginning in the early 1970s when Sweden and others got their full Sanders on."

"In Sweden, the effective marginal tax rate topped 100 percent in some circumstances. There is a reason that IKEA founder Ingvar Kamprad fled the country in 1973. Sweden instituted a scheme to confiscate corporate profits and hand them over to labor unions. The idea was, in the words of a Swedish economist, to have “a market economy without individual capitalists and entrepreneurs.”

"This was about as logical as it sounded — and delivered predictable results. The socialist golden years weren’t so golden for economic performance. Entrepreneurship plummeted. Job creation and wages sputtered. The Scandinavian story the past few decades has been a turn against socialism. Taxes have fallen, and markets have been liberalized. Kamprad returned to Sweden."

"It became obvious that generous-enough welfare benefits can undermine the initiative of even the heartiest Scandinavian stock, and these countries have been adjusting accordingly. An article in the New York Times a couple of years ago recounted the backlash against welfare dependence in Denmark. It cited a study that projected in 2013 that only three of 98 municipalities would have a majority of residents working.

"If no one will mistake these countries for Texas, they allow enough economic openness to stay vibrant. “Scandinavian countries,” Sanandaji writes, “compensate for high taxes and labor market rigidities by following liberal policies in other areas, such as business freedom and openness to trade.” Denmark, of all places, is ranked 11th on the Heritage Foundation’s index of economic freedom, right above the United States. Nothing will undermine the Left’s faith in the Scandinavian model, but Bernie Sanders could learn a thing or two from the reformers in the countries that he so admires. "
No argument that those countries aren't a paradise for big business, that's kind of the point. You get more things for society when large profits aren't held up above all else. And forget the 70s, just looking today, those countries still have a better GINI index, average literacy rate, lifespan, social mobility, lower infant mortality rate, lower death rate by malnutrition, in short, it's a lot of these better quality of life indicators, but you're right, not as outstanding economic performance compared to ones with less regulations.

And quoting the Heritage foundation is essentially propaganda. Ditto for the Cato Institute. They're well known bought and paid for think tanks with heavily biased agenda that's shown all kinds of omissions of relevant data in the past. It's one thing to have biased opinions, but they like to ignore facts that don't fit their worldview. I may as well quote what some homeless guy is shouting on the street.

Point being, how do you equate the kind of socialism in Sweden as being on the same page as hundreds of millions killed?
 
"I really wouldn't count on a socialist candidate in the future."...

what?...the entire democrat party is socialist...when I was a kid Communists ran for office openly but couldn't get elected , so they needed to infiltrate one of the 2 parties...I give you the modern democrat party...J.F. Kennedy wouldn't recognize today's democrats...but o'well...bring on the free shit , I have been working since pretty regular since about 12 years old , and yes I worked summers at 12 for my uncles excavation/demolition company pulling nails out wood for resale , stacking salvage stuff , tearing down houses...having fun.

I am ready for some free shit , I hope you youngsters get me all kinds of benefits so I can sit on my ass in retirement and laugh. I don't have any kids to worry about living in a shit hole country when I'm gone so it's all about me!...haha...get to work boneheads I have partying to do!!!
 
"And quoting the Heritage foundation is essentially propaganda. Ditto for the Cato Institute."

but you will spend your time at Politico , CNN , Center for American Progress , and listening to B. Sanders ilk...no problem , I'm am sure you will have a great life
 
People who oppose UBI do so based on a gut reaction without any sort of understanding of what it would cost and how it would be funded.

https://www.theatlantic.com/politic...ons-pushing-a-guaranteed-basic-income/375600/

The reality is that with increased automation, workers will be pushed out of jobs. Eventually, the number of people out of work will actually start to hurt businesses because they'll have fewer and fewer people purchasing their products.

By guaranteeing a minimum income for every person you guarantee that there will always be a source of revenue for corporations and that the economy will continue to function.
 
"And quoting the Heritage foundation is essentially propaganda. Ditto for the Cato Institute."

but you will spend your time at Politico , CNN , Center for American Progress , and listening to B. Sanders ilk...no problem , I'm am sure you will have a great life
I think CNN and MSNBC are essentially modern corporate propaganda also, just different flavors. I'm unfamiliar with politico and Center for American Progress. I do think Bernie Sanders would have been a decent candidate, though him falling behind the Democratic party afterwards certainly made him look a lot less promising. My main point was you sound like you don't know what you're talking about if you think there's no difference modern democratic socialism like the kind in Norway and Sweden than Communist Russia under Stalin.
 
ya...I don't know what I am talking about...thanks for the enlightenment...hmm , that's why I posted the words of someone FROM Sweden , but don't let that get in your way....rock on socialist , I am waiting for my free shit , so you and your children need to get your asses working to pay for my existence , I am old and retiring and I expect a high lifestyle , and thanks for your future support
 
"I really wouldn't count on a socialist candidate in the future."...

what?...the entire democrat party is socialist...when I was a kid Communists ran for office openly but couldn't get elected , so they needed to infiltrate one of the 2 parties...I give you the modern democrat party...J.F. Kennedy wouldn't recognize today's democrats...
I think your information on the democrats is about 40 years outdated. They would be Republicans from a generation ago, just with socially liberal views. I mean let's look at Hillary Clinton, she was the frontrunner last election:

-Pro Wall Street, doesn't think they need heavy regulation
-Pro trade agreements that favor big business
-Warmonger
-Against rise in minimum wage or any sort of meaningful change to help the lower class
-In favor of the oil pipeline
-Came out and said single payer healthcare won't happen
-Supportive of Obamacare, which is pretty much the exact same thing Romney had

So how exactly does that translate to being socialist?
 
Robots.

Eventually you will have so much automation that you will have a permanently unemployed class.

UBI actually makes sense from a fiscally conservative standpoint. Get rid of all of the existing welfare programs and all of their costly bureaucracy (the rules, regulations, and the employed bureaucrats that are there to make sure people qualify) and just give everyone a check.

https://www.libertarianism.org/columns/libertarian-case-basic-income

Sadly, so few people understand the concept of UBI and even fewer bother to research it even to a minimum degree before disregarding it in its entirety. I could carry on, but I have a different point to make.

The most interesting aspect of the UBI in nearly any form (direct cash/benefit payment is the most efficient) is that it places the greatest amount of responsibility on the individual while simultaneously reducing the size of government. I realize this may seem counter-intuitive, especially with everyone arguing that everyone else is just a lazy lout seeking nothing from life except a free ride, but hear me out on this one:

1) The money goes to the individual, meaning they are now choosing how it is spent. Yes, there are prerequisites like shelter and food, but as it stands currently, no one is truly exempt from these prerequisites right now (you could argue that the homeless are, but I don't think the vast majority of homeless want to be homeless).

2) The onus is on the individual. By providing enough that they can satisfy the basic prerequisite needs of shelter and food, if they choose to spend their money on drugs and be homeless, that is on them. It is their choice. The same can be said of people that simply accept housing and food as enough to live the way they want to live. This is a net increase in individual choice in general.

3) People will still want to work. Maybe not all of them, but enough that consumption, the driving force of the current economy, can continue in relatively similar fashion to what we are currently accustomed. All of the things beyond basic survival like high-speed internet, nice shoes or a car that is fun to drive are still going to require additional effort in the form of work to attain.

4) The elimination of entire cities worth of government bureaucracy needed to manage the current entitlement programs should be a top priority for all small-government ideologues. Think of the current number of systems, layered upon each other from the local (city/town) level all the way up to the federal level. Nearly all of it is unnecessary in a UBI system. TANF, SNAP, Section 8, even Social Security, all require massive amounts of people and resources to administer, ineffectively in many cases, while a UBI could eliminate the need for all of that government waste (some programs consume more in administrative overhead than they provide in net benefits to beneficiaries). Even better, automation fills the roles necessary to provide a direct cash benefit to the populace. The bloated bureaucracy can be replaced by some computers...what's not to like, especially for techies.

5) The average person will have the opportunity to spend their time focusing on the things that they find fulfillment in, rather than performing menial tasks just to get by. Automation and a bottom-line mentality that sacrifices long-term health for short-term financial gains have been and will continue to erode the ability for unskilled labor to survive. We also must face facts that not everyone is capable of learning a skilled trade. For some, being a manual laborer is as far up the food chain as they are able to work themselves. These are often a portion of the population receiving benefits from the government right now because they have likely been phased out of various jobs and require assistance just to survive. We are already providing such assistance, why not make it easier to give out from a cost to administer standpoint?

There are more points that could be listed. Damicatz linked a great place to start. There are others. Do some research, look at the trajectory of society, realize that while automation has changed the scope of the economy in the past, it has yet to have the potential to eliminate professional services the way it is currently poised to, and at least take the time to learn about a subject before dismissing someone's opinion of it...We have the greatest tool for information exchange ever in the history of society, don't squander the opportunity.
 
ya...I don't know what I am talking about...thanks for the enlightenment...hmm , that's why I posted the words of someone FROM Sweden ,
Yeah, that's why I agreed on some of the points he said and pointed out the other half of what he didn't say. Look, if you don't want to actually address the argument and just spew your lines, then I guess yeah, enjoy!
 
People who oppose UBI do so based on a gut reaction without any sort of understanding of what it would cost and how it would be funded.

People who oppose UBI have a clearer understanding of it than its proponents.

When UBI proponents can explain in clear economic terms where the money comes from and how this system would sustain itself with reduced economic activity caused by a large, permanently unemployed class, then we'll talk.
 
People who oppose UBI have a clearer understanding of it than its proponents.

When UBI proponents can explain in clear economic terms where the money comes from and how this system would sustain itself with reduced economic activity caused by a large, permanently unemployed class, then we'll talk.

Where do you think the money comes from? It comes from the same place that all federal money comes from: same place as military spending, same place as welfare, same place as medicare, etc.

What makes you think that there would be a large permanently unemployed class? Do you have data to support this or is this just another example of a gut reaction without supporting data?

Universal Basic Income has been tested, it was successful, so I'm not really sure what it's detractors are basing their opinions on.
 
People who oppose UBI have a clearer understanding of it than its proponents.

When UBI proponents can explain in clear economic terms where the money comes from and how this system would sustain itself with reduced economic activity caused by a large, permanently unemployed class, then we'll talk.
Well the guy above explained the first part. As for the permanently unemployed class, yes, that likely would increase some. Here's the rub though: that's going to increase ANYWAY. That's the whole point behind UBI. This way ensures people still get to eat when they can't find a job.

Now if we were smart about things, this could actually INCREASE employment because there would be no reason to have a minimum wage if UBI existed. You could simultaneously eliminate the minimum wage, drop wages as a result, have more people working, while people who can't find work aren't going to go hungry and homeless. Of course, that's if we were smart. My vote is still "do nothing" for what the leading policy of the day will be.
 
"They would be Republicans from a generation ago"...hahaha...congratulations on using the pat leftist revisionist methodology...goes right along with the good one that the democrat racists that started the klan and such are now the republicans...

you win lefty's!!!!....let me know when I can sign up for my FREE SHIT!!...I am retiring soon and you are going to be in charge of the freeshit dispersals...get with it instead of posting here you should be working today (because this is the day of war mongering right?) ...GET TO WORK I have some relaxing to do at your expense!

can't wait till you leftist Sandinistas get it going on...all you do is talk about hooking us up...dang!
 
I think your information on the democrats is about 40 years outdated. They would be Republicans from a generation ago, just with socially liberal views. I mean let's look at Hillary Clinton, she was the frontrunner last election:

-Pro Wall Street, doesn't think they need heavy regulation
-Pro trade agreements that favor big business
-Warmonger
-Against rise in minimum wage or any sort of meaningful change to help the lower class
-In favor of the oil pipeline
-Came out and said single payer healthcare won't happen
-Supportive of Obamacare, which is pretty much the exact same thing Romney had

So how exactly does that translate to being socialist?
People think Trump won cause America is racist. Not because Hillary is a republican disguised as a Democrat. But the reality is Trump got an equal amount of Republican votes as the previous runner, but Hillary got far less than Obama did. It certainly didn't help that the Democrats worked against Bernie along with the news media. Which resulted in nobody trusting the news media.

When UBI proponents can explain in clear economic terms where the money comes from
For starters, from the welfare system itself. It costs a lot to administer who gets money if qualified. Remove that and just hand people checks would be a lot more effective. Plus any additional monies needed can be received from taxes, specifically form the wealthy.
and how this system would sustain itself with reduced economic activity caused by a large, permanently unemployed class, then we'll talk.
It won't, but neither is the system we have now. It's all stepping stones. At some point the money you receive will be equivalent to monopoly money. But for now, UBI is a stepping stone to that future. Cause I can assure you that you can't have capitalism with widespread automation.

Keep in mind the money we use today is a relatively new invention. The gold standard in the US was ended in 1971 by Nixon. In 1694 the Bank of England started to give out banknotes and in 1745 started to print money in denominations. Today we have bitcoin which it's value is based on how much data your graphics card can crunch. We treat the money we use today as something thats been around forever. It hasn't.

Stop looking at money as something with tangible value and UBI will make more sense.
 
"They would be Republicans from a generation ago"...hahaha...congratulations on using the pat leftist revisionist methodology...goes right along with the good one that the democrat racists that started the klan and such are now the republicans...

you win lefty's!!!!....let me know when I can sign up for my FREE SHIT!!...I am retiring soon and you are going to be in charge of the freeshit dispersals...get with it instead of posting here you should be working today (because this is the day of war mongering right?) ...GET TO WORK I have some relaxing to do at your expense!

can't wait till you leftist Sandinistas get it going on...all you do is talk about hooking us up...dang!
I think you might be going senile in your old age. Feel free to explain to me how Democrat economic policies today differ from those of Republicans from the 80s to early 90s. Again, Obamacare is literally the plan Romney had in place. Is Romney a Democrat? Fooled me!

And yes, warmongering. We got into MORE conflicts under the Obama administration than we did before he entered office.
 
Romney going along with the democrat controlled house of Mass doesn't constitute "the republicans of the 80's and 90's" no matter how you spin it...and it is not literally what Romney wanted for their defunct state...he vetoed several things and was overridden by the house and senate of Mass...

and I don't think that Romneycare was a good idea either...so I guess while I wallow in senility I would say I think your are drowning in your youngster stupidity...kinda makes us even
 
hmmm...

"
Let us go back into history and see what lessons America learned from its relatively short dalliance with Maoism much before the ‘great leader' himself was born.
The year was 1607. The first 104 settlers had arrived from Europe in Jamestown in the Virginia Tidewater region of the US in May. They found soil which was fertile beyond what they had seen in the lands which they had left. Fruits were abundant. Wild game such as deer and turkey were everywhere. There was no shortage of fish and other seafood. And yet within six months 66 of the original Jamestown, Virginia settlers had died. Only 38 survived.

Another 500 settlers were again sent to settle in Virginia in 1609 and within six months 440 of these too died by starvation and disease. This was called ‘starving time' and one eyewitness described it in English of those times, ‘So great was our famine, that a Savage we slew and buried, the poorer sorte took him up againe and eat him; and so did divers one another boyled and stewed with roots and herbs.'

How could this be? How could there be such death and starvation amidst so much plenty of meat, fruits, and fish. The fault as the witness said lay not in the ‘barrenness and defect of the Countrie' but in the ‘want of providence, industry and government'.

What caused this lack of ‘industrie'? Were the Virginian settlers lazy and indolent? It could not be. People who were sent there were the chosen ones – the very best of men.
The problem was that all the men who were sent were bonded labourers. They had no stake in what they produced. They were bound by contract to put all they produced into a common pool to be used to support their colony as a whole. This was communism in its purest form. Everyone was supposed to work according to ability and take according to need.

As so frequently happens with present day government policies, the results were the opposite of what was intended. Since hard work was not personally beneficial for the settlers they responded by stopping work.

Phillip A. Bruce, a late 19th century US historian, wrote of the Jamestown immigrants, “The settlers did not have even a modified interest in the soil … . Everything produced by them went into the store, in which they had no proprietorship.” The result as Bruce wrote would be what anyone who has any knowledge of human nature would expect, men, even the most energetic, refused to work.

This is what happened in Mao's China and in Soviet Russia on a grand scale. In America a few hundred deaths stopped the communist experiment, in China and Russia, millions had to die before these nations abandoned the principles of Marx, Lenin, and Mao.

Jamestown changed course just two years later in 1611 with arrival of the ‘high marshall' Sir Thomas Dale from the UK. He understood the problem, freed the settlers by abrogating communal ownership. Each man received three acres of land and, other than a lump sum tax of 2 ½ barrels of corn, did not have to contribute anything to the common pool. The colony immediately began to prosper. It prospered because each individual directly benefited by his labour and knew that he would also bear the full consequences of any reduction in output. Private ownership and capitalism worked.

Communism doesn't work because it destroys the reward and work nexus. Communism doesn't work because the absence of property rights heralds the end of all incentive to produce.

Communism doesn't work because humans do no wish to sacrifice themselves to the common good. "
 
People were never meant to work for other people. The people that do are servants to the person that hired them. Time becomes your currency.
A businesses can trade labor or resources as currency, a individual worker cannot. The introduction of corporations and fiat money pushed society as a whole into being servants, trading time for money.
How much is something worth means nothing. What you have to do to own it means everything. This allows society to place a high price on things that make you work more, slave more. Forces you to go to school and do things that don't come natural to you.

A child raised in a family business can do the work taught by their parents. A child raised in a home with parents working jobs has to be taught by society.

I do agree with this and UBI will empower people to say, "no, i will not work for you. I am going to work for myself doing what i want to do"

[Tons of stuff about lack of ownership causing things to fail and communism is bad]

I agree in general with what you're saying and completely about communism being a bad idea. UBI is neither communist nor will it cause lack of ownership. UBI will actually counter the last one. In our current economy most people do not enjoy what they do - this will cause great deals of not caring about the product. When people can choose what they want to do, they will take ownership and pride in wghat they produce.

This is a good talk about the current state of the economy and UBI

 
Last edited:
Canada tried it in the 70s as part of a pilot program and it was effective. People still worked, money was saved on the consolidation.

Sadly, nothing came of the program.

My province is making another go of it, although I only think it can be effective if they completely eliminate all other welfare related services, which I'm not convinced they will do since our government here is addicted to finding ways to waste other people's money.
 
My province is making another go of it, although I only think it can be effective if they completely eliminate all other welfare related services, which I'm not convinced they will do since our government here is addicted to finding ways to waste other people's money.

Ya, that's the point. The only way it'll be successful is if we eliminate all other aid and consolidate it all under this one program. Should be easy to administer since every person will get the same amount regardless of income. Also, given our government's propensity for bungling even the simplest tasks that may be wishful thinking.
 
Oh, believe it, Zuckerberg really, really cares about you.

That's why he spent millions creating a fake group, "Republicans for Sensible Immigration Reform" whose purpose was to ensure easy access to foreign tech worker visas so Facebook wouldn't have to pay the wages US engineers command. He's not a Republican, and it's only "Sensible" if you live in India.
 
Last edited:
LOL, I love how so many of your just "know" that "the overwhelming majority" of people will keep working if they receive a government handout.

This isn't a critique of a demographic group, I'm merely using them to illustrate.

The black male unemployment rate is around 14% I believe. Millions of illegal aliens cross the border, many illiterate even in Spanish, dirt poor, no skills. They manage to find jobs that allow them to survive and have enough left over to send money back home. More than a few have even thrived under these conditions.

In my neck of the woods, illegal day laborers charge $25 an hour. Illegals in restaurants here are not paid under minimum wage, in fact, you won't find one accepting less than $15 an hour. Demand for workers, even at these wages, outstrips supply. Illegal carpenters, painters, roofers, average closer to $30 an hour.

And yet we still have a large number of unemployed people who apparently believe working in a restaurant, in landscaping, cleaning houses, or on a construction site is beneath them. These are people living a subsistence existence on a welfare pittance.

And you want me to believe if that amount is raised high enough to cover all basic living expenses even more demotivation isn't going to take place? You're oblivious to human nature. Most people aren't driven to be self motivated, they need something to motivate them.

The Nordic countries are buckling under the costs of a social-welfare system that worked well when their largely homogenous communities operated on the unspoken understanding that while the welfare system is generous, it's only to be used as long as absolutely necessary. Now, with large numbers of people migrating from cultures that don't have the same values, having extremely large families, and never bothering to work, politicians in those hyper-PC countries have made public statements reminding people that the welfare state is not supposed to be a way of life.
 
Last edited:
The Facebook CEO gave a commencement speech Thursday at Harvard University and called for universal basic income as a solution for inequality. The rationale behind UBI is that a certain amount of money would give those with too little enough to get by, and it would be more efficient and effective than welfare, which requires a costly administrative structure to work. Phenomena like automation and startup culture is giving the idea significant traction in the tech industry.

"Every generation expands its definition of equality. Now it's time for our generation to define a new social contract," Zuckerberg said during his commencement speech Thursday at Harvard University. "We should have a society that measures progress not by economic metrics like GDP but by how many of us have a role we find meaningful." "We should explore ideas like universal basic income to give everyone a cushion to try new things," he said. Zuckerberg told the class of 2017 that he was able to pursue his passion in Facebook because he knew he had a safety net to fall back on. "If I had to support my family growing up instead of having time to code," he said. " I wouldn't be standing here today."

Good, its about time Humanity grow up and stop acting like childish, self-serving, resource hoarding brats that unfettered capitalism promotes.

I'm also of the belief that left unchecked.. humanity will consume and destroy all available resources on this planet.. much like a virus.. then lead itself to extinction.
 
Will do just the opposite...creating a dependency simply leads to morose, institutionalized people with zero drive in life because there's no incentive to attain anything better in life.

That's a BS argument.

Yes, I can live in a mud hole, provided by the govt. Why would I ever aspire for more? :rolleyes:
 
That's a BS argument.

Yes, I can live in a mud hole, provided by the govt. Why would I ever aspire for more? :rolleyes:

Tell that to almost everyone on the gov't dole in innercity shitholes and presented with a lacking of quality education and very little opportunity. I'm sure most of them have aspirations for more...just close to zero ways to attain them.
 
What you have to do to own it means everything. This allows society to place a high price on things that make you work more, slave more. Forces you to go to school and do things that don't come natural to you.
I'd point out that until the govt. made it the law that kids under a certain age couldn't work and had to go to school market forces, society, and "wanting things" weren't all that effective at forcing people to improve themselves and were generally treated as disposable cogs in a machine. Pre-1930's history was a pretty bad time to be in general for anyone who had to work for a living as a common low skill laborer.
 
I'm sure most of them have aspirations for more...just close to zero ways to attain them.
That is a completely different argument from what you were saying before though.

If they have aspirations then they have drive in life, as you note they simply don't have the means to attain them, which is generally due to the economy of where they live being poor (though racism plays a role too) and so they have little to no opportunities despite any drive they might have.

You can have all the drive in the world but if you have little to no opportunities to improve yourself + are poor (so you can't readily move to a better place, pay for your own education, etc) it doesn't really matter now does it?

edit: And I'd point out that in the near future high levels of permanent unemployment look to be a given due to automation. The only things anyone seems to be in disagreement over that issue are exactly how bad its going to get and the exact timing. That is a big part of the reason why you're seeing some people start to call for a UBI/Mincome of some sort. They can see the problems coming and they're trying to address it before it turns into a big mess.
 
Last edited:
As far as I can tell the Ycombinator experiment and others have only begun or are being proposed. What studies are you citing?

Google Mincome Dauphin and read. With respect to drug use, "A growing body of international evidence demonstrates that promotion, prevention, and early intervention initiatives show positive returns on investment." In other words, treat addiction as medical and a mental health issue and we all win. http://www.camh.ca/en/hospital/abou...rs/Pages/addictionmentalhealthstatistics.aspx
 
So we need to think about the goal, otherwise it’s going to end up like the discussion with capitalism and socialism for perpetuity. We don’t have that time. A good starting point is from Article 25 of the International Declaration of Human Rights from the UN, it states: EVERYONE HAS THE RIGHT TO A STANDARD OF LIVING ADEQUATE FOR THE HEALTH AND WELL-BEING OF HIMSELF AND OF HIS FAMILY, INCLUDING FOOD, CLOTHING, HOUSING AND MEDICAL CARE AND NECESSARY SOCIAL SERVICES […]
And once you start thinking like that it really does make sense. well said and well argued.
 
I think you can save a lot of time by cutting to this part right here. From what I've seen, everyone arguing against UBI, or a safety net, or some other plan to more fairly balance the system does NOT agree with that statement and subscribe more to a Social Darwinism view than anything. America has shifted pretty far to the right since those words were written...

Yet the principles are still valid today. in fact, they are the deep base for social planning in many nations... except the United States, which tries to argue for Social Darwinism.
 
Back
Top