SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
Think of it: The government prints more money or perhaps — god forbid — it taxes some corporate profits, then it showers the cash down on the people so they can continue to spend. As a result, more and more capital accumulates at the top. And with that capital comes more power to dictate the terms governing human existence.
UBI really just turns us from stakeholders or even citizens to mere consumers.
Meanwhile, UBI also obviates the need for people to consider true alternatives to living lives as passive consumers. Solutions like platform cooperatives, alternative currencies, favor banks, or employee-owned businesses, which actually threaten the status quo under which extractive monopolies have thrived, will seem unnecessary. Why bother signing up for the revolution if our bellies are full? Or just full enough?
Under the guise of compassion, UBI really just turns us from stakeholders or even citizens to mere consumers. Once the ability to create or exchange value is stripped from us, all we can do with every consumptive act is deliver more power to people who can finally, without any exaggeration, be called our corporate overlords.
No, income is nothing but a booby prize. If we're going to get a handout, we should demand not an allowance but assets. That's right: an ownership stake.
https://medium.com/s/powertrip/universal-basic-income-is-silicon-valleys-latest-scam-fd3e130b69a0
(Score: 2, Informative) by crafoo on Monday October 15 2018, @11:16AM (4 children)
Doesn't matter either way.
No UBI or "shares" until the borders are secure. Feeding and clothing the entire world's poor isn't something the productive people of our economy can do. Too much dead weight.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by jmorris on Monday October 15 2018, @05:02PM (1 child)
Wasn't it Uncle Milton who said "You can have open borders or you can have a welfare state, you can't have both." way back in like the 1970s or thereabouts? It is a pretty obvious thing that totally escapes the reasoning power of the Left. At least it does in their public declarations, I am convinced they fully understand what they are doing. classic Cloward & Piven overload the system.
(Score: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Monday October 15 2018, @10:12PM
Well since we have never had open borders and since the immigration problem was directly created by the US with the Drug War I can't work up any amount of outrage with your post. Welfare benefits are hard to get and very few illegals are able to get them. Go strawman your xenophobia somewhere else.
(Score: 2, Interesting) by Gault.Drakkor on Monday October 15 2018, @09:57PM (1 child)
I call bull shit.
We (globally) can feed/cloth shelter all(globally). Its mostly a matter of distribution. It is a complicated technical problem and solvable. There is a related social issues which complicate it further.
Is it a good idea? That is what is up for debate.
"Too much dead weight." How do you know this?, what limited experiments/trials we have done show this to be false. We do need to do longer experiments before committing. Is it a net benefit to society? I believe a form of UBI will be, but it is not known. It needs further investigation.
If your argument is: "I don't want to work to support people who are not contributing/working." I am OK with that. That is a reasonable argument.
We don't have wings so we shouldn't fly! Saying that we shouldn't do something because you say that it can't be done.... bull shit.
(Score: 2) by crafoo on Wednesday October 17 2018, @11:29PM
Yeah we might be able to provide a set of clothes and some food to everyone, given the wealth. Continuously though? What I really meant anyway was "provide the current USA standard of living to everyone that wants to come over our borders."
Anyway, I'm alright paying taxes and providing a safety net to the inhumanities of capitalism and bad luck. To US citizens, my fellow Americans, part of this glorious country. We will rise or fall as a nation first, and citizens of the world second.