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) by c0lo on Monday October 15 2018, @02:35PM (2 children)
Yeah, "top dog" wannabes unfortunately exist in non-neglijible amounts.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday October 15 2018, @04:55PM (1 child)
May that is why societies that shunned these things fared better.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday October 16 2018, @02:56PM
Hence the fall of the harem.
I'll explain. In the past, there were a plethora of harems. The rich would thus have many wives, and the poor would have none. Perhaps from an evolutionary perspective this was "good" if you assume that the rich are "more fit", but that is immaterial to this discussion. The problem is the hoards of unwed poor men. These men would also like to have wives/sex. Eventually, there will be a group of them that kills a harem-have to take his riches and/or harem. This churn is bad for society because it means that the poor are plotting killings (instead of working) and the rich are planning defenses (instead of working) and thus less valuable work gets done.
In contrast, a monogamous society doesn't deplete the supply of women, and thus most men have a chance at marriage. These men are then kept busy working to support their families, and this work benefits society. Likewise the rich have fewer rabbles to contend with and can focus more of their efforts at extracting more labor from the labor force rather than keeping the labor force suppressed. As dismal as it sounds, it is still win-win. Much less death, much more progress.