Google’s Chief Futurist: Basic Income Will Spread Worldwide by the 2030s

Huh. Communism = Venezuela. Universal basic income = communism. The citizens were essentially being given "universal basic income" through the oil companies that Hugo Chavez took over 10+ years ago. Chavez taxed the shit out of the oil companies and gave a little of the excess to the citizens through government programs. Now the country is collapsing, because the government ran that industry into the ground. Communism DOES NOT WORK!

Universal basic income is a stupid concept where, just like the minimum wage, it means the cost of goods of everything in the country go up, because everyone has more money to spend. It does nothing for people at the bottom, because the cost of imports go down and the cost of the country's exports go up - that means less money for everyone in the country.


I live in Venezuela, communism DOESN'T WORK but that isn't what happened.

I'm too tired to go deeply into it and l ramble a bit but look they didn't tax it, they the industry was mostly of the government already on one side that you got wrong, some wells were of private interests and those were taken pretty much by force, which is kinda different from taxing.

There was a wrong believe in the uneducated mass that the country was rich since yes we have lots of potentials in the form of oils, minerals, and natural resources, but anyone who knew enough to check the per capita gdp knew that it was bs, sadly from very bad choices of prior governments we had enough stupid people to vote Chávez into power.

Chávez had a stroke of luck with the really high oil prices on the early 2000s, while prior governments in the 90s had I believe one 20$/ barrel income, he suddenly got a boost that ended hovering the 100$/barrel, with all that money Chávez kicked almost anyone worth shit from pdvsa, and started getting his cronies into everything just based on loyalty instead of actual capabilities, they sucked at everything except at corruption, and thus started to steal left and right, the actual programs he "created" were mostly rebranding of real social programs that existed and helped people in a logical way, now changed to support only loyalty to his personality cult, with no checks and balances, and thus with massive corruption that he didn't give a shit about since hey, they were printing money even with people that barely knew how to run the oil industry and he himself was stealing left and right.

Due to the massive increase in income he more than doubled the number of public employees, without increasing actual productivity, he used the public workers as defacto members of his political party, having to attend to acts and vote in exchange for keeping the jobs, used the funds of pdvsa as his petty box, buying at ridiculously low prices anything he fancied on the country and taking by force anything not sold, this is how almost all the industries were 'nationalized', millions of acres of productive land too, transportation, telecoms, pretty close to everything that wasn't too big /dear in the eyes of the people. And he gave them all to the same cronies that really had no fucking idea what to do with it and thus everything started to go to shit since they were dumb enough to even disregard advisors that tried to explain that maintenance was a thing, that a country must always invest to grow the offer of energy and utilities if it wants to grow and have a decent future, and since the money was good and they had a massive amount of loyalties bought they stood in power let's say "legitimately"

Eventually opposition did a very retarded thing and gave him actual full legislative power (an election boycott that was as stupid as it gets since back then they weren't sham), and all was lost, not long after the price of oil dropped like rocks, mind you that everyone knew that the high price was gonna drop years in advance (I saw classes about it in college in the early 2000s, yes during the shitty times of 2002, that far in advance it was known that it wouldn't last), but these retards hadn't heard reasons and had been squandering the income throwing millions to buy allied governments in South America +the Caribbean, so they heard the advice of Fidel Castro which the bastard from Sabaneta loved and went to China to ask for funds, and they were more than happy to oblige,they also started sending some shitty sub par weapons alongside Russia, in return they wanted futures in the oil wells that had been "nationalized" and plenty more. At this moment as far as I know most mining is now Chinese owned, since at least 2014 the ministry of industries has a Venezuelan minister as is required by law but it also has a Chinese president internally which I found baffling (and required you back then to study and learn a shitty book written by the fucker from Sabaneta, I tested for a job there and flunked the ideology interview, was given a copy of that pamphlet whatever and was told to learn it by heart, reapply and they would love to have me then, no I didn't do that)
I'll stop as I am rambling a lot and can still ramble a lot more.





Tldr: taxes would have been a semi sensible government, reds outright steal or offer you prices that aren't even close to the market worth of your property.
Also they ran everything into the ground, not only the oil industry.

Fuck communists.
 
We are greedy fucks. There is no way this will result in good for everyone.
A UBI wouldn't make everyone rich. It'd just be there to establish a minimum acceptable standard of living so saying its about greed means you don't even know what a UBI is.

We will be punished for our greed soon enough.
So do you think we live in a just world? If we are then why weren't the rich/financial institutions punished for the GFC and/or robosigning scandals? If anything they were rewarded for their actions.

If the economy cannot sustain humanity's numbers, then it is humanity that's the problem, not the economy.
Humanity doesn't exist to sustain the current economy as it is. The economy is a artificial thing and always has been, there are no natural laws that dictate its existence or its form. Its sole purpose is to benefit humanity and if it fails to do so then its reason for existing is mooted.

Of course your ilk must try and paint those with my views as genocidal Nazi monsters to bolster your weak arguments.
Most of those who do argue for depopulation of some sort are indeed genocidal Nazi monsters though. If you don't give qualifiers you have to expect to be lumped in with those types by default.

The planet can sustain a much larger population than we have now, just not if we continue the excessive consumption that advertisers tell us we must have. Why must a family of two have a 3000 sqft home?
Hahhaha so you think reducing the global standard of living just to cram more people on Earth would be a good thing? And most don't live in 3000sq ft homes. Even in the US. In the US these days more and more people are still living with their parents all the way into their late 20's and 30's. There are already more renters than owners in some states and nationwide home ownership is on the decline while renting spikes.

have more gadgets which draw more power, ect.
Most of the gadgets people are buying don't use a lot of power though and power efficiency has done nothing but improve greatly for the last decade or so. US electrical power use has been on the decline since ~2008 despite all the hoopla about buttcoiners power usage. Its not too hard to find articles about the power companies freaking about this. That is part of the reason why Trump is trying to throw subsidies at the coal and nuclear power industries right now by abusing some rules meant for wartime use.

What I really want to know is where does the money for the universal basic income come from?
The rich. Just tax them sufficiently and we can have a UBI and they'll still be rich. After all not only do they have most of the wealth in the country, as well as globally, they've also been getting nearly all the global economic growth since at least 2008. And even with high tax rates they'll still be rich too.

If they're going to hoard most of the wealth and nearly all growth there is no choice but left to tax them at a much higher rate than anyone else anyways. Its simple math at this point since soon nearly no one else will have anything but bare minimum level income anyways. That is why more and more people are saying a UBI or Mincome will become necessary. The alternative will be that the economy will fall apart anyways since Consumers will be gone. Then the rich get screwed anyways just like everyone else since their wealth only exists if the economy exists.

If there wasn't welfare, then the government would not need to take as much taxes from me, which would give me more money to spend to generate job opportunities for more people.
Its a known fact that reducing taxes doesn't create jobs. It just makes rich people richer. That is why when Bush cut Taxes the economy did worse while rich people got richer. Jobs are created when the economy grows and employers see that adding more employees would be of economic benefit to them.

That is why many of the socialist economies like Venezuela and Greece have so many problems.
Nope. The problem with those countries is jaw dropping levels of corruption and incompetence in thier govt. You could give either of then the perfect economy and it'd still all be terrible there because the people in power are only in it for themselves in those countries.

People who support this think there are rich people out there that would gladly pay for whatever socialist dreams they have.
No we know quite well and good that the rich are not pro UBI. They're going to have to be forced to do it the same way they were forced to comply with child labor laws or a 40hr work week.

However these "rich" are the same people who hire teams of accountants to take advantage of every tax shelter and loophole to pay as little as possible.
If the laws can be changed to allow a UBI then they can be changed to close loopholes too. The tax system need not be perfect to be effective at taxing the rich either BTW.

If you give enough for people to actually live on, many people working low paying jobs would quit and become completely dependent on the handouts.
Most of the proprosed UBI's provide poverty level of income. Its a given you'd have to work if you want more than that. Just with a UBI you won't have to work 40hr a week anymore to get a decent standard of living. 20hr or less would do it if wages stay similar to what they are now.

Less work hours are assumed due to the effects of automation BTW.

All that said, I can see this happening some day, but that day is a long, long way into the future.
There have been multiple papers that give estimates of less than 20yr for upwards of 30% of the population to be permanently put out of work due to automation. Some have been posted in these forums over the last 2yr or so. So its not reasonable to assume its a "long long way into the future" at this point. Realistically well before we get to that point we're going to have to have our economy geared to support a UBI so that we can have a smooth transition anyways.

It would require the complete automation of many industries, that would result in a huge increase in production and a huge lowering of costs. Robots planting and harvesting food, building houses, manufacturing and delivering almost every product, etc.
Robots already do much of this. That is why the US is only 2nd to China in global manufacturing yet manufacturing jobs have largely disappeared in the US. We also produce huge amounts of food with very few farm workers for this reason too.
 
Basic Income is a solution for the wealthy. This is not a benefit for the poor or for the middle class. It exists to save capitalism. If people lose jobs then people have no money. No money then no purchase power. Nobody to buy goods and services means no reason to produce. The system collapses and billionaires money are worth nothing.

It's not a good solution but the better solution is something that many people wouldn't swallow.
I agree on all points except for "It exists to save capitalism." Literally the opposite: It exists to save anti-capitalism. When companies staunchly cash out on capital rather than re-invest in their own industry (even in the simplest form of paying their employees well), it's one of many forms of anti-capitalism, and in all cases, are usually unsustainable. The more we chase them down to save them, the worst our countries become.
 
If the economy cannot sustain humanity's numbers, then it is humanity that's the problem, not the economy.

good so you and your loved ones are personally volunteering to be the first in to the death camp so we can reduce the population... or is it just other people that need to die because you are somehow more worthy of life than the rest of us?
 
When the businesses and wealth leave the country, you can no longer fund this 'dependency' you have created, and thus millions of people starve.

The whole purpose of UBI is to help the worse-off.... But ultimately the worse-off is exactly who ends up dying in the end.

This is just like how the Climate Change people ended up hurting Global CO2 levels. Short sighted virtue signalling that doesnt think things through... Ended up running companies off to other countries where they would produce more CO2 for the world as a whole, as well as waste more CO2 making all new facilities, and then wasting even more CO2 transporting their good back. Well done, idiots.
 
Its a known fact that reducing taxes doesn't create jobs. It just makes rich people richer. That is why when Bush cut Taxes the economy did worse while rich people got richer. Jobs are created when the economy grows and employers see that adding more employees would be of economic benefit to them.

I guess I must be among the rich, because I've seen my best income growth after we've have large tax cuts.
I've always work from small companies, and the tax cuts helps the bottom line, allowing them to expand.


Nope. The problem with those countries is jaw dropping levels of corruption and incompetence in thier govt. You could give either of then the perfect economy and it'd still all be terrible there because the people in power are only in it for themselves in those countries.

And socialism/communism always leads to bigger government, which leads to more corruption due to the additional power it gives the government.

A government that is powerful enough to give you all you want, is powerful enough to take it all away.


No we know quite well and good that the rich are not pro UBI. They're going to have to be forced to do it the same way they were forced to comply with child labor laws or a 40hr work week. If the laws can be changed to allow a UBI then they can be changed to close loopholes too. The tax system need not be perfect to be effective at taxing the rich either BTW. [/QUOTE

Now you are really dreaming, as the rich/powerful people write the laws and are not about to close their loopholes.
End result will be to take even more from the middle class, until many of them give up and decide to live off the UBI.


Most of the proprosed UBI's provide poverty level of income. Its a given you'd have to work if you want more than that. Just with a UBI you won't have to work 40hr a week anymore to get a decent standard of living. 20hr or less would do it if wages stay similar to what they are now.

And people will simply game the system, just like they do with welfare. Work on the side for cash, pay no taxes and collect the maximum benefit.
I see this all the time.
The woman is paying for food with an EBT card (more expensive food than I'm buying)
The guy behind her pulls out a large wad of cash to pay for a couple cases of beer and other stuff you can't use an EBT card for.
Then they leave the store and put it all in a car that's a couple years newer than what I'm driving.


There have been multiple papers that give estimates of less than 20yr for upwards of 30% of the population to be permanently put out of work due to automation. Some have been posted in these forums over the last 2yr or so. So its not reasonable to assume its a "long long way into the future" at this point. Realistically well before we get to that point we're going to have to have our economy geared to support a UBI so that we can have a smooth transition anyways.

And similar alarmist predictions have been made for over 100 years, yet most people can still find jobs.
In fact the unemployment rate where I live is under 4%. That's considered full employment.
There are help wanted signs everywhere if you are looking for a lower wage job ($12-$15 hour)

I work for a small company, and we have trouble finding workers. Not just technical workers, but even basic office workers.

For technical workers, the hardest part is finding qualified workers.

For the general office staff, it's finding someone who will actual show up on time and is willing to work.
We've had a few over the past couple years who just stopped showing up for work, didn't bother to say they quit.
When HR finally gets a hold of them, they say they just decided they didn't like the job or some similar excuse.
Even worse when you have given them a laptop, and they didn't return it.
Can't hold their last check, all HR can do is threaten to take them to court or threaten to ruin their credit by billing them for the laptop.
 

So real talk:

Who pays for the UBI? Taxes from business and the rich? And what happens when these people move their businesses, money and selves to a different country? PEOPLE STARVE... You just killed millions of people by creating a dependency that you can not guarantee because you do not fund or supply it yourself.

Congratulations, you just did vastly worst harm to the people you tried to help, because you couldnt be bothered to think beyond your hyper-fixations.
 
The economy is not so important that we need to keep it alive. All the economy does is keep the rich richer. We can let the 1% deal with it. Especially when robots will end up doing most of the work, but who's going to buy the products they produce? Gotta have money to buy the shit these robots make.

Also, humanities population has nothing to do with it. We simply cannot effectively employ everyone with a living wage. This is why China makes most of our shit, cause we depend on communist countries with shitty living conditions to make our throw away crap.

Who makes the Robots? Oh yeah, the rich people. Once they have robots, why do they care if you buy their shit? They only need you to buy their shit so they can continue paying you to produce the things they want. Remove the need for you, and they have absolutely ZERO reason to support you or this economic system you so reject. "Let the 1% deal with it". Oh wow thats so naively cute.

But lets forget robots and why you think rich people need you to buy their stuff. Lets pretend you are right and that rich people just like money and want more of it...

Who pays for the UBI? Taxes from business and the rich? And what happens when these people move their businesses, money and selves to a different country? PEOPLE STARVE... You just killed millions of people by creating a dependency that you can not guarantee because you do not fund or supply it yourself.

Congratulations, you just did vastly worst harm to the people you tried to help, because you couldnt be bothered to think beyond your hyper-fixations.
 
Basic income is better than what we currently have.

The current system invites abuse, incentivizes not working/studying, and has tremendous overhead.

Give everyone a basic income but reduce it by $0.25 (ballpark, would probably have to be a sliding scale) for every dollar of salary earned so that it's always beneficial to work over just staying home.

If executed correctly it will drive people back into the workforce and allow them to take lower paying jobs without starving to death.
 
I guess I must be among the rich, because I've seen my best income growth after we've have large tax cuts.
And yet income growth has been stagnant to negative for decades despite multiple tax cuts over that time frame. Gee what should I trust? Random internet guy who keeps posting talking points or actual past events and stats on those events?? Hrrrrm

I've always work from small companies, and the tax cuts helps the bottom line, allowing them to expand.
And yet businesses didn't expand after Bush's tax cuts and with Trump's tax cuts most of the money went towards stock buybacks and not expansion either.

And socialism/communism always leads to bigger government, which leads to more corruption due to the additional power it gives the government.
That might be your belief system but that has nothing to do with reality.

A government that is powerful enough to give you all you want, is powerful enough to take it all away.
And a govt. that is weak enough to not defend its people from the greed of the rich and powerful is useless.

Now you are really dreaming, as the rich/powerful people write the laws and are not about to close their loopholes.
Right now they do but its not always like that. I gave you 2 examples (child labor laws, 40hr work week) where change was successfully forced on to them. By default if a UBI is able to be passed you have to assume that there will be political clout to close tax loopholes.

until many of them give up and decide to live off the UBI.
Again any UBI will be poverty level income. Most won't want that and you know it.

And people will simply game the system, just like they do with welfare.
By and large people don't game the welfare system though. The Welfare Queen is a racist Reagan era myth. That you see it "all the time" is meaningless drivel.

And similar alarmist predictions have been made for over 100 year
Nope. Read the papers themselves. They've been through peer review for a reason.

In fact the unemployment rate where I live is under 4%. That's considered full employment.
Do you really believe that how things are now are how it'll be forever into the future? Or even just 20yr in the future like I mentioned?

Because I did say 20yr and wasn't talking about right now.
 
maybe in the far distant future somthing like this will be necessary ASSUMING there is no longer a need for humans to work. and only then. it would be a complete shitshow to try it now and even in the future it will have some issues

the bigest one I see is where the heck the money would come from. assuming you give out any helpful amount of money you are looking at a massive expence coming from people who already dont pay taxes. and just moving money around doesnt help all that much. if you keep the money in the us (military, public services, subsides) then most of the time the money is still going to the population some of whitch would have major issues without it. this is of course excluding rich lining there pockets, but eh, alot of them really did make there money ligitimently and i dont belive its the goverments job to take that away soley for the sake of being fair to the population. i would however like to state i dislike the ability to avoid taxes if you have enough money and i dont nessisarily opose tax brackest as long at they are reasonable.
 
And yet income growth has been stagnant to negative for decades despite multiple tax cuts over that time frame. Gee what should I trust? Random internet guy who keeps posting talking points or actual past events and stats on those events?? Hrrrrm

Guess I must have imagined my 40+ years of working.

As to the stagnant to negative income growth, it has more to do with the growth in government and government interference in the markets than it has to do with greedy companies.
California has one of the worse business environments in the country (taxes, regulations, etc.) and it also has the highest income difference between the rich and the poor.



Wow, businesses haven't expanded like crazy yet. It's been almost 4 months!
Tax cuts take time to work their way into the economy. Give it another 8-12 months.

That might be your belief system but that has nothing to do with reality.

100 years of history disagree with your reality bubble.


And a govt. that is weak enough to not defend its people from the greed of the rich and powerful is useless.

Nobody is advocating for that weak of a government. There is a point somewhere between anarchy and an all knowing, overbearing government.


Again any UBI will be poverty level income. Most won't want that and you know it.
By and large people don't game the welfare system though. The Welfare Queen is a racist Reagan era myth. That you see it "all the time" is meaningless drivel.

Yet when states implement reform, by requiring either job training or community service for able bodied people to receive an EBT card (food assistance), suddenly there is a huge drop in people applying. This happened in Maine back in 2015.

I have a relative who worked with someone who had a number of section 8 rentals. She didn't understand why they always wanted to buy her groceries and then let her pay them cash when they got back. Had to explain that's how they turned their EBT card into the cash they used to buy their drugs.

Gaming the walfare system depends on the state. Some state are strict and don't pay much. They don't have too much of a problem.
Other states (like where I live in California), are lax, and pay significantly more. Makes gaming the system much more worth while.

Just like the school lunch program. We have schools telling people that they won't check the income number they put down, and let them know how low the number needs to be to qualify for free lunches. We have schools in upper middle class areas (think $600K+ homes) where most the kids are classified low income and qualify for free lunches. Nobody cares because so many other programs are keyed to the school lunch program. More "poor" kids means more funding.
 
So real talk: Who pays for the UBI?
Yes the rich and the wealthy corps will pay for it. Moving to another country won't matter.

Why not? Because if they move their headquarters their businesses (ie. selling goods/services) will just get taxed appropriately to pay for it. They can always choose to go out of business but than they'll lose most of their wealth and power.

There is a reason why "going Galt" is fictional and not something you see in reality.

Guess I must have imagined my 40+ years of working.
Or you're making stuff up. Or you're one of the rich people who really benefit from these sorts of policies. But nah you're probably just making stuff up.

more to do with the growth in government and government interference in the markets
The govt. has shrunk over the last few decades and any govt. interference (ie. bank bailouts) has been at the behest of rich/banks.

California has one of the worse business environments in the country (taxes, regulations, etc.) and it also has the highest income difference between the rich and the poor.
And yet the economy there does better than most anywhere else in the US right now. While income disparity is indeed high (you can in part thank Reagan's Prop 13 for that) its fairly high anywhere in the US right now and the state's actual economy seems to be doing quite well so it appears you don't know what you're talking about.

Why don't you take a look at the economy of Kansas (which doubled down harder than most any other state on tax cuts) and tell me how its doing?

Wow, businesses haven't expanded like crazy yet. It's been almost 4 months! Tax cuts take time to work their way into the economy. Give it another 8-12 months.
You don't understand. The money has already been spent. Its all gone. There is no economic boom miracle coming from these cuts at all because it has already been mostly pocketed (aka stock buybacks) by the rich. And the economic effects from stimulus efforts generally get felt pretty quickly if they're effective. If there were going to be big effects we would already be seeing them by now.

100 years of history disagree with your reality bubble.
History seems to be more complex than you're giving it credit.

Nobody is advocating for that weak of a government.
De facto you are. Policies like a UBI are being viewed as a necessity as a reaction to improvements in automation, the impetus isn't from political movements like pro-Socialism/Communism elements in the US which largely have no political power anyways. You're just mixing up your talking points again without actually understanding what they're supposed to mean again.​

Yet when states implement reform, by requiring either job training or community service for able bodied people to receive an EBT card (food assistance), suddenly there is a huge drop in people applying.
Which isn't proof of widespread fraud like you claimed. It is however proof that if you make it harder to get welfare fewer will be able to get it which was the whole point of that change.

I have a relative...
I don't care about your just so personal anecdotes when there are national numbers available for welfare fraud and the general effectiveness of the program.

Realistically any system will be imperfect because the people running it are imperfect. However so long as, on balance, the system provides more good than harm then I'd say its worthwhile. Especially when no alternative exists.
 
I don't get the appeal of Kurzweil, all I ever hear about him is how he takes some concept that's talked about alot and place it far enough into the future that it might be reasonable to suspect that it'll happen, or if it doesn't he can just say that alot had changed since then.

That's a job now? Cuz I'd like some of that Google money too thank you very much.
 
Yes the rich and the wealthy corps will pay for it. Moving to another country won't matter.

Why not? Because if they move their headquarters their businesses (ie. selling goods/services) will just get taxed appropriately to pay for it. They can always choose to go out of business but than they'll lose most of their wealth and power.

There is a reason why "going Galt" is fictional and not something you see in reality.

OH. Other people will pay for it and not you personally. Thats what I thought.

No one said anything about 'going galt'. This is about 'greedy people' (your own assumption) preserving their wealth, not about running away to watch society rip itself apart. I am pretty sure you can atleast understand the concept of someone doing what is needed to preserve what they have worked for... It has taken place in every example of overtaxation, so quit pretending as though it is some sort of dismissable notion.

But for humors sake, lets go with your fantasy scenario where they dont leave and let themselves be taxed into nothiningness. When the businesses dont make money, and the rich arent rich anymore... Who pays then?

At the end of the day you fail to address the reality. You can not guaranteed this money because it is not yours, and when you do run out of this money you will have created millions of dependencies that will kill millions of the people you thought you were helping.

You are seriously a terrible person. Willing to kill millions of people and spend other peoples livings all to fit your own personal belief system, so you can selfishly feel morally superior. You are evil.
 
OH. Other people will pay for it and not you personally. Thats what I thought.
LOL no I'd pay taxes too. The rich will just pay more since they have most of the money anyways. Perfectly fair and reasonable.

No one said anything about 'going galt'.
Yes you did. You didn't use those words but in effect you were talking about exactly that. I can tell because you were claiming that "PEOPLE STARVE... You just killed millions of people" would be the end result of taxing rich people more because they'd flee the country.

I am pretty sure you can atleast understand the concept of someone doing what is needed to preserve what they have worked for.
Quite a lot of them didn't work for it though. They've rigged the economy to get govt funds (ie. bailouts) diverted their way when things go bad and get nearly all the growth sent their way on top of that and now exist largely as Rentiers. In the end the rich would still be rich if they got taxed a whole lot more too so I have no sympathy for them.

let themselves be taxed into nothiningness.
This is a strawman. I and others who are pro UBI/Mincome have talked about greatly increasing their taxes not taxing them into nothingness. Even with huge 50% tax rates (which would be an example of a top tax bracket for those who earn millions per year) many would still be incredibly wealthy BTW. Many of them currently pay hardly anything in taxes.

Willing to kill millions of people and spend other peoples livings all to fit your own personal belief system, so you can selfishly feel morally superior. You are evil.
Are you drunk or high or something??
 
Google needs a new chief futurist. This guy must have been drinking that unfiltered "raw water" out there in Silicon valley.
 
So you trust a robot to choose between what mushrooms you eat?
Robots to dispense your meds and do surgery?
Robot butchers SHOULD give you nightmares.
There is no way in hell 75% of jobs will be robots.
I'd love teachers jobs to be robots, so they are not giving out liberal ideas.
Other than that I see disaster.


Either go with the flow or get left behind.

You'll probably get left behind, as most will.
 
UBI? That is such a laughable idea. It's amazing that anyone who thinks UBI could work can even function in society.

UBI? That's just like today's welfare/EBT. Free money for doing nothing.

Oh, did I say "Free"? Hmm. I meant "someone other than the guy who believes UBI is a good idea has to pay for it". Or, if you prefer, "they pay". Who is "they"? Shrug. Some amorphous group the UBI supporter is envious of. Far be it for the UBI supporter to say, "I will donate 50% of my income (after taxes) to get UBI going".

Instead, that other group has to sacrifice so the UBI supporter can "feel good" about helping the downtrodden who "need UBI".

Did you know the story of Robin Hood got changed about 40 years ago? Initially, his story was how King Richard, kidnapped/missing in the Crusades, was replaced by his corrupt, greedy, brother John. That's still part of the story, right? Well, Robin Hood did NOT "take from rich to give to the poor". (That's a Hollywood/socialist/progressive spin on the yarn.) Instead, if you'll remember, Robin and merry band, took back the ill-gotten taxes from the tax collectors and gave it back to the villagers.

Why do I bring this up? Because the same leftwing philosophies which warped the tale of Robin Hood are behind the concept of UBI. Instead of usurious tax rates being evil, it is the "rich" who are evil. Huh. If you succeed, you are bad? Get back in line, you non-conformist! Stay with the mediocre in the group! We will all run this race together! Or walk it. You're faster? That's not fair. Let's put more weight on your shoulders to even things up.

It is rare to find the individual who espouses belief in causes like UBI actually stepping up and living those beliefs. It's easy to say, "we (meaning "you") should have UBI". How about, instead, the UBI guy find someone in need and donate to that person the amount needed for their vision of UBI? Think UBI should be ~$30k/year? Okay, give $30k a year to someone. Do it. YOU do it. Don't say it. Don't chant it. Don't spam forums with it. Just DO it.

Live your beliefs.

Instead, it's all about their feeling good by saying something. If you oppose their thought, well, you must be evil, greedy, bad. Shrug. Keep snapping your fingers and going to rallies to feel good. So much better to feel good than to do good, yes?

Just sayin'.
 
I agree on all points except for "It exists to save capitalism." Literally the opposite: It exists to save anti-capitalism. When companies staunchly cash out on capital rather than re-invest in their own industry (even in the simplest form of paying their employees well), it's one of many forms of anti-capitalism, and in all cases, are usually unsustainable. The more we chase them down to save them, the worst our countries become.
If it were anti-capitalism then why are so many wealthy individuals in favor of UBI? If you're bill gates you probably don't want the economy to go the way of socialism, but at the same time capitalism is not going to be sustainable. Hence UBI. Though I personally think we'll end up with an economy that's similar to that in video games where the money doesn't ultimately matter, but it still entices people to acquire it because it is there.
 
a futurist?

what the fuck kinda job is that?

here's a prediction, prepare to spend time in the unemployment line.
 
Any government function that does not benefit everyone is evil and immoral. It is just wealth redistribution in another name. Middle class and wealthy people dont need UBI. Therefore this is just another name for welfare.

Taxes should only be used to benefit everyone. Infrastructure,Education,Military etc... anything else is evil. Its just theft from some people and giving it to other people. All other forms of welfare should be charity based.

The only way taxes are moral is if they are a condition to live in a society and use its features/advantages and that they are used for the benefit of everyone in the society. Using taxes for anything else is just theft under armed threat. If you want to carve out a section of the population to help then you need to get people to voluntary help and give up their money. Anything beyond that is immoral.
 
So real talk:

Who pays for the UBI? Taxes from business and the rich? And what happens when these people move their businesses, money and selves to a different country? PEOPLE STARVE... You just killed millions of people by creating a dependency that you can not guarantee because you do not fund or supply it yourself.

Congratulations, you just did vastly worst harm to the people you tried to help, because you couldnt be bothered to think beyond your hyper-fixations.
It's not as simply as taking your shit and moving it. America and Europe are the biggest economies in the world and one effects the other. So if America enacts UBI, I assure you Europe would be mostly there already. So where are you as a rich business tycoon are going to take your industry? Africa? China? MiddleEast? There aren't many economies bigger than the west. Plus despite your willingness to move to another country, who has the purchase power? That's right, the countries with UBI.

Exactly how far you think these people will get with their automated factories? If you don't employ anyone then we don't need you the wealthy person. We can take your shit which we likely subsidized anyway, and sell it to someone who going to stay within the country. Besides most factories are in China and I guarantee you China is going to just take the factories for themselves at some point.

As for the money, well the Euro and the Dollar isn't exactly the same thing as gold. If America and Europe are doing poorly financially, then the respective currencies are losing value as well. Remember these currencies aren't tied to any gold standard so they go up and down frequently as a result. If Amazon decided to fuck off to Africa because the American economy is doing poorly, the wealth that Amazon has acquired in US dollars is probably not worth anything either.
 
Last edited:
Who makes the Robots? Oh yeah, the rich people. Once they have robots, why do they care if you buy their shit? They only need you to buy their shit so they can continue paying you to produce the things they want. Remove the need for you, and they have absolutely ZERO reason to support you or this economic system you so reject. "Let the 1% deal with it". Oh wow thats so naively cute.
It's not like they have a choice. If they refuse to produce the things we need, then the government steps in and creates public businesses to take their place. If neither the government nor the private business step in to produce, then you have a lot of angry people who will riot. Remember, Americans have guns so I would rethink that.
But lets forget robots and why you think rich people need you to buy their stuff. Lets pretend you are right and that rich people just like money and want more of it...

Who pays for the UBI? Taxes from business and the rich? And what happens when these people move their businesses, money and selves to a different country? PEOPLE STARVE... You just killed millions of people by creating a dependency that you can not guarantee because you do not fund or supply it yourself.
Cause that's how it's gonna play out right? :rolleyes: You do what Bill Gates said, and that's to tax business that replace people with robots. Also remember when it comes to things like food we American's subsidize a lot of it, meaning we're paying for it. So if businesses refuse to produce, we'll just take back our subsidies, and our land, and our equipment.
Congratulations, you just did vastly worst harm to the people you tried to help, because you couldnt be bothered to think beyond your hyper-fixations.
The alternative is to let things fall apart without any intervention. If we don't do something eventually we'll all be starving Marvin's looking for jobs just to eat, while the rich have automated their crops to the point where they could certainly feed people but refuse to because of money.
 
It's not like they have a choice. If they refuse to produce the things we need, then the government steps in and creates public businesses to take their place. If neither the government nor the private business step in to produce, then you have a lot of angry people who will riot. Remember, Americans have guns so I would rethink that.

Cause that's how it's gonna play out right? :rolleyes: You do what Bill Gates said, and that's to tax business that replace people with robots. Also remember when it comes to things like food we American's subsidize a lot of it, meaning we're paying for it. So if businesses refuse to produce, we'll just take back our subsidies, and our land, and our equipment.

The alternative is to let things fall apart without any intervention. If we don't do something eventually we'll all be starving Marvin's looking for jobs just to eat, while the rich have automated their crops to the point where they could certainly feed people but refuse to because of money.

You have zero perspective of the past or the world if you think capitalism is falling apart and needs intervention.... Capitalism has resulted in less poverty in the world, and even goes as far as supporting countries who cant support themselves because they are trying socialism.... Again, you have zerro perspective on history, the world, and what real struggle actually is, if you view Capitalism as a bad thing.

Bottom line, people that hate capitalism are just jealous greedy people that simple think "those rich people dont deserve that". It is sad.... You cant even think far enough beyond that to see the consistent failures of alternative 'forced equality' systems.
 
You have zero perspective of the past or the world if you think capitalism is falling apart and needs intervention.... Capitalism has resulted in less poverty in the world, and even goes as far as supporting countries who cant support themselves because they are trying socialism.... Again, you have zerro perspective on history, the world, and what real struggle actually is, if you view Capitalism as a bad thing.
Capitalism has needed intervention many times before. Remember the great depression? FDR's biggest accomplishment is that he saved capitalism with his New Deal. Since then we've had many depressions and each time we needed to tweak capitalism.

Remember UBI is to save capitalism, not to destroy it. The alternative is socialism or riots in the streets, that works too.
Bottom line, people that hate capitalism are just jealous greedy people that simple think "those rich people dont deserve that". It is sad.... You cant even think far enough beyond that to see the consistent failures of alternative 'forced equality' systems.
There are worse alternatives if we don't. How do you feel about the purge?

 
Where does the money for UBI come from?

It doesn't matter because in reality "money" doesn't really exist. 96% of the world's wealth...is debt. The economy doesn't really work, it just relies on a lie that the 1%/corps and banks hope to keep going for as long as they can.

Have a watch of this -



It makes the big lie about how the world really works quite clear.

Essentially we are at the point of a world order that's now going over into collapse. A new solution is needed to support the 8-9 billion on the way.

Oh yeah and it's come to light that since 1998 $21 TRILLION in tax payers money has just gone 'missing'. That's the 1%'s CBI right there.
 
Last edited:
Bottom line, people that hate capitalism are just jealous greedy people that simple think "those rich people dont deserve that". It is sad.... You cant even think far enough beyond that to see the consistent failures of alternative 'forced equality' systems.

No the problem is the world is running a bastardised mutant version of capitalism.

True capitalism is where everyone gets a good chance to make money and a fair share of the profit from their hard work. The current version of capitalism the world runs to is the establishment makes sure they only get a fair chance to make the money (anticompetitive/lobbying/corruption etc) and they get all or most of the profit.

That's not me saying that. That's most of the well known economic experts. They all agree capitalism is the best system and I agree too. The problem is the game is rigged massively.

We are heading towards a consumer economy where 99% of the consumers have no money to consume with.
 
No the problem is the world is running a bastardised mutant version of capitalism.

True capitalism is where everyone gets a good chance to make money and a fair share of the profit from their hard work. The current version of capitalism the world runs to is the establishment makes sure they only get a fair chance to make the money (anticompetitive/lobbying/corruption etc) and they get all or most of the profit.

That's not me saying that. That's most of the well known economic experts. They all agree capitalism is the best system and I agree too. The problem is the game is rigged massively.

We are heading towards a consumer economy where 99% of the consumers have no money to consume with.

"Capitalism is the best I agree, we just need to change it to where profits are shared in manner that I view as 'fair'"

Oh stfu.

You want to fix the 'consumer economy', remove all laws that have to do with people being self-sustainable on their own. Dont force consumerism via laws under the guise of 'capitalism' and then act like there is a problem that can only be fixed by 'being fair'.
 
Essentially we are at the point of a world order that's now going over into collapse. A new solution is needed to support the 8-9 billion on the way.
There already is a solution.
College and a job that isn't liberal arts.

Get a degree that delivers a job that doesn't make less than $50k a year.
Simple ,economiclly sound advice.
 
"Capitalism is the best I agree, we just need to change it to where profits are shared in manner that I view as 'fair'"

Oh stfu.

You want to fix the 'consumer economy', remove all laws that have to do with people being self-sustainable on their own. Dont force consumerism via laws under the guise of 'capitalism' and then act like there is a problem that can only be fixed by 'being fair'.


Well things are going to change so sit back and see what happens. I hope you get to keep your job and your children have more opportunity than picking crap out of landfill sites.
 
There already is a solution.
College and a job that isn't liberal arts.

Get a degree that delivers a job that doesn't make less than $50k a year.
Simple ,economiclly sound advice.


But those white collar jobs are next for the AI chop. Get a trade is probably better advice.

I think too many folks still think it's 1964.
 
The people who would be negatively affected by UBI are the rich that would be taxed obscenely in order to provide the UBI for the "less fortunate". Too bad that these same rich folks also have a heavy influence on politicians so the chance of UBI becoming a reality, especially by 2030, is laughable. The vast majority of states are already having trouble proposing and passing a $15/hour minimum wage increase, I'd love to see what would happen when UBI became a topic of discussion.
 
No the problem is the world is running a bastardised mutant version of capitalism.

True capitalism is where everyone gets a good chance to make money and a fair share of the profit from their hard work. The current version of capitalism the world runs to is the establishment makes sure they only get a fair chance to make the money (anticompetitive/lobbying/corruption etc) and they get all or most of the profit.

That's not me saying that. That's most of the well known economic experts. They all agree capitalism is the best system and I agree too. The problem is the game is rigged massively.

We are heading towards a consumer economy where 99% of the consumers have no money to consume with.

This.
 
"Capitalism is the best I agree, we just need to change it to where profits are shared in manner that I view as 'fair'"

Oh stfu.

You want to fix the 'consumer economy', remove all laws that have to do with people being self-sustainable on their own. Dont force consumerism via laws under the guise of 'capitalism' and then act like there is a problem that can only be fixed by 'being fair'.

You don't know much about economics, do you? It's Ok, most people don't.
 
The people who would be negatively affected by UBI are the rich that would be taxed obscenely in order to provide the UBI for the "less fortunate". Too bad that these same rich folks also have a heavy influence on politicians so the chance of UBI becoming a reality, especially by 2030, is laughable. The vast majority of states are already having trouble proposing and passing a $15/hour minimum wage increase, I'd love to see what would happen when UBI became a topic of discussion.

No, the people that would be negatively impacted are the people you think you are helping/ They will become dependent, and will eventually starve because of your actions once you run out of other peoples money to finance your 'moral righteousness'.
 
Back
Top