Poverty-alleviation programs like food stamps (SNAP), Social Security, and other "welfare" programs are broadly effective at reducing poverty, a new study from University of Chicago researchers found.
The study, performed by researchers Bruce Meyer and Derek Wu, conducted a more comprehensive analysis than most studies, because it used administrative data from the programs' payment records, not just survey data of recipients from the Census Bureau.
[...] For the elderly, Wu said the research found that Social Security benefits "single-handedly slashes poverty by 75%." Social Security's overall effect on all poverty is also enormous, responsible for by far the largest poverty reduction among all these programs, the study said.
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
Study: Public Assistance Programs Lessen Poverty
|
Log In/Create an Account
| Top
| 100 comments
| Search Discussion
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
(1)
(1)
(Score: -1, Spam) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday May 29 2018, @07:47AM
It was a sacred place, devoid of both sound and strife. So tranquil was it that even animals seemed to stay clear of it, despite its location. This place was a temple, and several dozen men were gathered in front of its steps; every single one of them appeared visibly nervous.
He had not yet shown His face to these hopeful men, which shook them even more. The men had trekked through the mountains and forests and braved many dangers to be here; they were that determined to meet just one person. Indeed, the being who resided here - known simply as The Master - was truly that great of an individual; even calling him 'divine' would be an understatement. Just as the men were about to give up all hope of meeting this great person, a single figure emerged from the depths of the temple. That figure was The Master.
His mere presence was enough to overwhelm all of the men present, and even cause some of them to fall unconscious; such was his power. The Master spoke simply, "Let us begin." Yes, it was finally time for The Master to look for promising pupils so that he could teach them The Way. However, this was not so simple; over the years, several thousand people had shown up to this temple with the hope of becoming The Master's students, and all of them had been turned away for possessing no potential. Thus, hearing Him say that He would begin The Culling made all of the men present feel a pressure greater than any they have ever experienced. Then, without regard to the men's feelings, the process began.
No one. After The Culling, There was no one left at the temple besides The Master. All of the men had been turned away. No, there was a single man left; his name was Brendonham. The Master spoke to Brendonham, "You are the only one with potential. However, I must offer this warning: In order to master my arts, you must endure grueling training beyond anything you can imagine and be prepared for the possibility that you will fail and gain nothing. Are you prepared?" Sweat dripped off of Brendonham like a waterfall. Still, despite his immense anxiety, the man managed to speak, "I... am prepared." The training began.
Several months of soul-crushing training, and then a year to demonstrate to The Master whether or not the training had worked; that was how this process went. It had been one and a half years since the training began, and it was time for Brendonham to show The Master the fruits of his labor. In truth, The Master had told Brendonham that he would likely need to go through the training countless times to even have a real chance at success. If this was the case, why was Brendonham - who was previously a weak and pitiful little man - exerting an aura of absolute strength and confidence? Was he simply overconfident, or was there some basis for his feelings? The Master slid open the door to the room that contained the results of Brendonham's labor.
"...!" The Master's eyes became as wide as circles. After several seconds, the legendary figure spoke, "Impossible! Have you reached The Realm of Cloud and Water!?" The Master, a sage who possessed unfathomable wisdom, was shocked. What sort of image could render such an amazing person speechless? Husks. Shadows. Shells.
They bore no resemblance to their former selves; they were bruised, as if they had been savagely beaten; they were naked, as if they had been violated repeatedly; they were covered in fresh and dried blood, as if they had been stabbed many times; and they were deformed, as if most of their bones had been broken and then healed back improperly. The many women and children in the room were alive in name only, and it was all because of Brendonham.
In order to master The Way, one had to possess an unshakable, unfaltering belief in men's rights that exceeded fanaticism. The scene before the two men proved beyond a shadow of a doubt that Brendonham possessed such an unwavering belief. The Master spoke in amazement, "This... impossible! To think that you would master The Way after only several months of training. In so little time, you have already far surpassed me! You truly are The One!" In response, Brendonham offered The Master his gratitude for instructing him.
Brendonham was truly grateful. Now that he had mastered The Way, the fragility of women and children would no longer pose a problem for Brendonham; he could break their bones; he could stab them; he could beat them; he could strangle them; he could violate them; he could torture them; and he could mutilate them. Brendonham could do all of these things to women and children, and yet, because of his mastery of The Way, they would remain alive even after enduring everything; it was as though some supernatural force was sustaining their lives, just so Brendonham could play with them longer. Yes, Brendonham was immensely grateful.
On that day, a new Master was born. On that day, Brendonham's future became as bright as the sun. It was a future filled with hope. It was a future filled with happiness. It was a future... filled with toys.
(Score: 1, Redundant) by Subsentient on Tuesday May 29 2018, @07:58AM (44 children)
Nuke Social Security, SNAP, WIC, everything but medicare, and replace it all with a universal basic income. The cost will be significant, but you'll instantly end most poverty and humanity will be able to stop fearing automation and technology, instead focusing on the benefits it can provide. There's other programs you could cut, of course, and we probably should. There's a lot that would be a just sacrifice to implement UBI. There will no doubt still be a deficit, but what we gain is greater than the cost.
"It is no measure of health to be well adjusted to a profoundly sick society." -Jiddu Krishnamurti
(Score: 4, Insightful) by coolgopher on Tuesday May 29 2018, @08:47AM (36 children)
Someone has yet to explain how basic market economics won't kick in and drive the cost of living up by $UBI, since the "haves" now can afford to spend $UBI more on basics (e.g. rent, food) than before.
I can't see any scenario where everyone aren't left *worse* off under UBI as soon as it has achieved equilibrium.
Please, enlighten me. With solid theory, not ideals. I'd love it if humankind could move into a ST:TNG like existence where working is not required in order to live (live, not just survive), but I don't see UBI as even being a stepping stone in that direction.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday May 29 2018, @10:05AM (6 children)
So basically, you are saying that providers' greed is what keeps certain fraction of population in permanent poverty? Hypothetically, if every last human being was to have a handsomely paying job, they would still suck out of each one of us everything and then some more, so that left tail of bell-shaped curve would still suffer?
Then, there is our problem - we can't solve it in any peaceful way, by helping those in need, because we have a tyranny of some evil men!
Or are you willing to explain your thought in some other terms, perhaps?
(Score: 2) by c0lo on Tuesday May 29 2018, @11:32AM (2 children)
Basically, yes.
Granted, they put it in more academic wording, like: "The prices will balance on the level the customers can afford to pay"
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
(Score: 2) by coolgopher on Tuesday May 29 2018, @01:08PM (1 child)
Indeed, that is precisely what I'm getting at. The only part of ST:TNG we have down pat is the Ferengi part. Greed Is Good!
(Score: 4, Funny) by Subsentient on Tuesday May 29 2018, @01:21PM
Rule of acquisition #109: Dignity and an empty sack is worth the sack.
"It is no measure of health to be well adjusted to a profoundly sick society." -Jiddu Krishnamurti
(Score: 1) by khallow on Tuesday May 29 2018, @02:51PM (2 children)
My interpretation of this would be that you're increasing the money supply and money velocity without increasing the value of what that money can purchase. Greed isn't involved, but monetary inflation is.
(Score: 2) by Osamabobama on Tuesday May 29 2018, @05:36PM (1 child)
These can look the same from a certain perspective. I think it's the same thought process that gives us "angry storm clouds" and the idea of a wildfire's insatiable appetite. Anthropomorphizing things' behavior can help us understand them, but only superficially. Such a model usually breaks down trying to explain anything beyond what we see on the surface.
Appended to the end of comments you post. Max: 120 chars.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Wednesday May 30 2018, @12:45AM
In which case a different perspective is needed.
OTOH, peoples' behaviors are complex and thus, for anyone with limited mental capabilities (which is all of us, incidentally) anthropomorphizing is a great way to understand that complexity (and not necessarily superficially either).
Further, consider the situation. The posters were anthropomorphizing the behavior of groups of people in an economic system. Anthropomorphizing people usually works fairly well. The problem instead was that they assumed the worst. Human greed is not the only emotion at work in an economy and much gets done without any emotion at all.
(Score: 2) by Subsentient on Tuesday May 29 2018, @11:03AM (14 children)
Well, for one, those changes will NOT be instantaneous, and while prices will surely go up, it's a farce to say that they'll instantly go up so high that nobody will be able to afford to live. UBI will have less value over time due to inflation, but it'll still be a huge improvement.
I'm no economist though, just my two cents on common sense.
"It is no measure of health to be well adjusted to a profoundly sick society." -Jiddu Krishnamurti
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday May 29 2018, @11:39AM (13 children)
Here in the UK, the minimum wage went up 4.7% on 1st April. For a business owner, it's 1/3 each for wages, overheads and profit. If wages increase at 4.7%, your prices must increase around 14%. Do you see how it works?
Proposals for helicopter money to fix the instabilities caused by government interference in the market are a doubling down on economic illiteracy. The Finnish report cannot come soon enough [businessinsider.com] although we know the argument that UBI defenders will spin this failed experiment: "not real communism".
(Score: 3, Interesting) by Subsentient on Tuesday May 29 2018, @12:11PM (9 children)
That's probably true for small businesses, so one negative argument one could make is that small businesses will suffer from UBI, but large businesses are not as likely to instantly raise prices to match, perhaps even ever, because they have deep pockets. They'll surely increase them some, but it's not likely it'll be a full compensation.
That said, there's another problem that is quite severe.
In the near future, a UBI will be *necessary* to prevent *mass destitution*, as there will NOT be enough jobs for everyone. There will be no alternative, except perhaps some extreme form of communism. I'm comfortable with medium-well done socialism myself.
UBI is necessary. There will be no alternative in the future. Labor costs will skyrocket, no doubt, because it will take much more to convince someone to do a certain job since it's no longer necessary to survive, but here's where the other part of the plan comes in: Automation.
Until now, it's been a boogeyman. When this comes to pass, there will be a much stronger incentive to automate most jobs. That will, once implemented, essentially *eliminate* most labor costs. I can see a bell curve with prices happening here.
"It is no measure of health to be well adjusted to a profoundly sick society." -Jiddu Krishnamurti
(Score: 2) by coolgopher on Tuesday May 29 2018, @01:19PM (5 children)
Oh no, there's a far more likely alternative than UBI as far as I can see.
It will start with civil unrest from the destitute, move on to all-out uprisings and civil wars, causing ever increasing refugee streams, which put other countries' resources under unsustainable pressure, causing their populace to rise up, spreading the damage further and further. The resulting mayhem will cause severe food shortages, causing certain countries to seize the only remaining option - military annexation of remaining agricultural areas, regardless of national borders, prompting full-on wars until that too becomes impossible from the food & resource shortage. At the end of this shit-storm the human population will have been reduced to something that's actually sustainable, and there'll be no shortage of hard work for everyone.
You know, I hope I'm wrong, but when it comes to humanity at large, I'm still betting on greed and screwing over "the small people". Oh, and on Musk getting to Mars.
(Score: 2) by Subsentient on Tuesday May 29 2018, @01:28PM (1 child)
Likely? Yes. Favorable? No. The whole point of UBI is to produce a more favorable outcome, of course. :^)
"It is no measure of health to be well adjusted to a profoundly sick society." -Jiddu Krishnamurti
(Score: 2) by coolgopher on Tuesday May 29 2018, @01:53PM
Given the prevalence of Greed, Greed & Greed, Inc. I only see UBI as hastening the process.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday May 29 2018, @02:13PM
How can there in the end be no shortage of hard work for everyone if we start with the premise that all the hard work is eliminated as too expensive?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday May 29 2018, @04:14PM (1 child)
You speak of this as though it is coming some time in the future. There are some who note that today we have the largest population of refugees in the world since WWII. [rescue.org]
Yeah, culling the herd tends to do that. Pretty nasty for those who have to endure it, though.
(Score: 2) by coolgopher on Wednesday May 30 2018, @06:23AM
You ain't seen nothin' yet.
And well, it's pretty nasty for those who don't live to endure the aftermath too...
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday May 29 2018, @01:36PM
Automation would have had little effect; aging population (falling cost of living) and steady GDP. Mass immigration has fucked all that up and will make Basic Income a political impossibility. [euronews.com] Look at the numbers of homeless in major cities and tell me mass destitution isn't already real, and the more people you invite the poorer everyone will be. [wikipedia.org]
(Score: 2) by dak664 on Tuesday May 29 2018, @02:54PM (1 child)
A no-money alternative was presented in the 1930s, ration joules equally and let a free market operate. Most "jobs" consume excess joules to build "wealth" in the form of money, ultimately to purchase a diminishing supply of future energy.
Interesting how bitcoin parallels the doomed capitalist model.
http://www.technocracyinc.org/ [technocracyinc.org]
(Score: 2, Insightful) by khallow on Tuesday May 29 2018, @04:39PM
Joules would be the new money.
(Score: 2) by sjames on Tuesday May 29 2018, @05:18PM (2 children)
The 1/3 thing is a rule of thumb. If you're too stupid as a business owner to realize that an increase in wages need only result in raising prices to cover the actual increase, you deserve to be beaten by those who can figure that out. I guess you must have determined that market forces have failed utterly.
Or perhaps you're just desperately clutching at excuses and that's the best you could come up with.
(Score: 2) by Osamabobama on Tuesday May 29 2018, @05:58PM
It is a rule of thumb, but the rule was not as stated:
A more realistic version of the rule is 1/3 direct labor, 1/3 direct material, and 1/3 overhead. Note that this doesn't include profit, because this is a rule of thumb for determining costs only. Alternatively, the stated rule of thumb could be using the idea of 'gross profits', but that implies that a significant portion of that 1/3 would go toward paying expenses, such as overhead.
Overall, though, it's a rule of thumb, and as such can't really be used to prove economic truths.
Appended to the end of comments you post. Max: 120 chars.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday May 29 2018, @09:30PM
Your suppliers don't raise their prices to compensate for the wage increase? All we're doing here is inflation, nobody ends up better off unless they are servicing zero or fixed-interest debt.
From the Weimar Republic to Venezuela, the combination of high government debt, redistributive policies and printing money has lead to hyperinflation. It wont affect people living hand to mouth [cnn.com] only those holding assets. [wikipedia.org] Does that better explain the problem for you?
(Score: 2) by suburbanitemediocrity on Tuesday May 29 2018, @12:22PM
More equal does not mean not worse.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by Immerman on Tuesday May 29 2018, @02:28PM (5 children)
>since the "haves" now can afford to spend $UBI more on basics
Umm, no they don't. Where do you think the UBI funding comes from? You tax the "haves" so that at some point, probably not too terribly far into "have" territory, the additional taxes neutralize the additional income from the UBI.
Basically a UBI smooths the transition from "haves" to "have nots", you still lose all the financial benefits as you claw your way into "have" territory - but you lose it slowly, as a percentage of your increased income, rather than running into repeated needs-based "benefit cliffs", where earning an extra $10 a month can lose you hundreds of dollars a month in benefits.
In addition it serves as "insurance" for "haves" - a sudden job loss, debilitating injury, etc. doesn't mean you lose all income - you still get your UBI to help slow your fall and get you back on your feet. Such a safety net can also serve as a trampoline - giving you the freedom to pursue further education, start a small business, etc. under greatly reduced financial pressure. A new business may take many months to break even, even if you're working for free - and most people don't have the savings to support themselves for anywhere near that long without income.
> basic market economics won't kick in and drive the cost of living up
As for that - unless there's collusion in the marketplace, competition drives prices down to cost+modest profit margins (in a truly free market, there wouldn't even be any profit margins). Basic economics says prices follow costs, not the customers' buying power. Housing is the one "non-luxury" field where there is potentially enough "collusion" to significantly alter that fact (often in the form of regulations imposing arbitrary minimums well above the market floor - e.g. no tiny houses that could be affordable for the "have-nots")
(Score: 2, Interesting) by khallow on Tuesday May 29 2018, @10:26PM (4 children)
This is a decent argument for UBI. However, we have other ways to solve that, such as tapering benefits at the cut offs so that they don't create such cliffs.
Or we could have non-scare quote unemployment insurance for the haves (or the haves could merely provide for their own insurance for unemployment).
That's kind of interesting, but people can already provide that themselves from their wages.
My argument on that was via inflationary arguments. You're increasing the money supply and money velocity without doing anything to improve the quantity or quality of what that money buys. Further, there would be a modest increase in labor costs from people removing themselves from the labor pool.
So to summarize and elaborate my arguments on the matter. Most, if not all of the benefits of a UBI could be done either by a few needs-based approaches or by just letting people cover their own needs. A particular economic need that is not being met here is business creation which would by itself go a long way to addressing these problems without any society-wide benefits payout. This is an obvious way to increase the demand for labor in a way that is mostly positive. Yet labor defenders and UBI advocates are peculiarly indisposed to thinking about it.
Moving on, for me the huge negative to UBI is that there is no natural level of payout. Create it and one will automatically create a conflict of interest between those who receive the benefits and the future of the society. We see that even with US Social Security (and similar public pension funds and savings programs throughout the developed world). The flaws of Social Security have been known for 80 years, most particularly, that it was pay-as-you-go and benefits couldn't remain as high as they have been set - a substantial reduction of benefits (at least 25% as of present) is required in order for the program to remain viable. So what decade will someone finally get around to fixing Social Security?
UBI is worse in two important ways. First, it creates a massive pool of voters (perhaps even a majority) who will gain from any increase in UBI. Second, there is no institutional limit, unlike Social Security, on what one pulls out. For Social Security, you were limited to a low multiple of your lifetime payments into the system. It's not much of a limit, but at least voters weren't inclined to rob the treasury beyond the usual. For UBI, there is no connection between payout and anything. If the society has been suffering for 20 years because of high taxes required to fund the UBI, it doesn't matter. You will still get your payout and you can still vote for candidates who will promise to take even more.
(Score: 2) by Immerman on Wednesday May 30 2018, @02:40AM (3 children)
>That's kind of interesting, but people can already provide that themselves from their wages.
Somewhere in the neighborhood of half the U.S. population has less than one month's income worth of savings. Many/most of those have less than one week. Maybe that's just evidence that half the population has really bad money management skills (in which case, perhaps a third-party system is justified on those grounds), or maybe you just have a grossly overoptimistic estimate of what the income/expense ratio actually looks like for most people. $27k/year (average individual income) doesn't necessarily go all that far in a lot of places.
As for an inflationary argument- you're NOT changing the money supply - you're simply redistributing the existing amount.
As for a natural limit - you're right, there's nothing in the concept that inherently sets a limit. However - you could set it to something that would naturally follow economic fluctuations, for example: set a flat rate 10% income tax, and then redistribute that equally to everyone. Then a rising tide really *would* float all boats, while a falling tide would hurt everyone. That would give everyone incentive to promote the overall health of the economy, though figuring out how to effectively harness that motive might be a trick.
A flat percentage redistribution would also make certain that only exactly half the population ever "wins", at least in terms of direct economic benefit.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Wednesday May 30 2018, @03:00AM
While I grant that a small fraction of that portion doesn't earn enough to save money, the point of needs-based benefits would be to cover them. As to the rest, if it's not important to them, it's not important to me.
Gets my vote.
I don't buy that argument. At the least, you're increasing money velocity which is inflationary. And if any borrowing happens in order to cover the UBI (or offset federal spending for such), then that is very inflationary.
Which would be fine, until the people in power promise 15%. Or 20%. Or 95%.
10% is a reasonable rate, and maybe one could set up a stable system, say via constitutional amendment that would be hard to game in the above way. But basic legislative law is wide open to such abuse.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Wednesday May 30 2018, @09:08AM (1 child)
And in the places where it doesn't go that far, they tend to earn more than that.
Inflation also is not always global. Putting a lot of additional funds in a sector can inflate prices for things that sector demands. For example, the alleged majority who can't even save a month's worth of income, will spend that UBI like sand falling through open fingers. The increased flow of such money for the services most likely purchased will go up in response.
In all though, this is the best response I've received in years. It's refreshing to read from someone who has actually thought about the problem.
(Score: 2) by Immerman on Wednesday May 30 2018, @02:57PM
Let me add my own update then - I realized after posting that $27k is the average (mean) income - nowhere near half the population makes that much. In fact I couldn't find the median individual income, only for households, but going from the disparity between mean and median household income, median income is closer to $20k.
As for "more expensive places paying a lot more - even in New York City the median household income is only $50k, which if it bears the same relationship to individual income as the country overall, means the median individual income is still in the neighborhood of $20-22k. And of course that's the MOST you can make and still be in the bottom half of the population. Most people in the bottom half make a lot less than that.
(Score: 2) by sjames on Tuesday May 29 2018, @05:12PM (3 children)
I'm guessing that's because you WANT a reason to believe it can't work.
"Haves" by definition can already afford all the basics they need, why would they buy more? Are you saying that if you got a check for UBI every month, you would eat twice as much as you do now? Does that even make sense to you?
Further, are you acknowledging that our current programs fail to provide necessities to the poor? Because otherwise, why would the price rise on necessities? Unless you also don't believe that markets work?
(Score: 2) by coolgopher on Wednesday May 30 2018, @01:28AM (2 children)
If I'm selling food and all of a sudden I know everyone has $UBI extra to spend, if I'm aiming for profit it is in my interest to jack up prices. If I'm surrounded by other sellers who are also profit motivated (quite likely), it is also in their interest to jack up prices. As much as you can argue that competition will bring prices *down*, cartels, oligopolies etc will appear to counteract that. The market will pay what the market can bear, not one iota less, and quite often more.
(Score: 2) by sjames on Wednesday May 30 2018, @01:56AM (1 child)
So you ARE saying that you don't believe that markets work. Sounds like some serious regulation is in order to bust up the cartels and oligarchies.
But consider, people may have UBI to spend, but not all with you. Of course, if you think about it, you're accidentally claiming that any attempt to improve one's situation is futile.
(Score: 2) by coolgopher on Wednesday May 30 2018, @06:14AM
Oh no, I think they work exceptionally well, for what they were designed for - making the unscrupulous rich richer, while presenting a polished straw man to take any flak.
Until such a time when ruthless self-interests are societally condemned and shut down, *any* scheme will be co-opted, exploited and manipulated in the favour of those who don't have any scruples doing so. That's the nature of the beast.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday May 30 2018, @12:05AM (1 child)
The cost of the UBI will ensure that there are no more "haves." There is no such thing as public money: just taxpayer money. The government creates nothing but merely redistributes to the lazy and useless what their betters earned.
(Score: 2) by Immerman on Wednesday May 30 2018, @03:00PM
The government is the only reason you can accumulate massive wealth without paying for your own private army to protect it - the entire concept of private property is a human creation.
(Score: 5, Interesting) by edIII on Wednesday May 30 2018, @01:29AM
That's pretty simple, but the end result would not be Capitalism as you know it.
Translation: Avaricious hellbound c-suites making decisions.
Why did Epipens get so ridiculously expensive again? One single super-cunt that could only see dollar signs, and she didn't give a FUCK about children, or anyone else needing these truly miraculous and life saving devices.
Why has rent gone up over 400% in Sonoma County (Northern California)? That's right. Greedy fuckers that we should track down and brutally kill.
What everyone misses about basic market economics is the human aspect of it. When you have sociopathic fucking dirtbags like Trump running the show, they will quite easily act in their best interests, even when they know the results of what they're doing are going to REALLY HURT the weakest and most vulnerable among us. Which is incidentally the definition of Evil; Performing actions that will knowingly cause harm to another, that only result in the benefit of the actor. It's all game theory, and you MUST evaluate the actors accordingly, and honestly. Assign power levels, and then assign intent.
After a lot of simulations and testing you will find that commodity prices raise (beyond inflation) because of Greed. It's truly that simple.
What we need are the terrible unAmerican, pinko-fucking Communist regulations. With regulations you can prevent rent increases like that. You could also mandate that no single person or corporation can own more than 5% of real property in a given county. Rent control is another method, but making sure that ownership is extremely well diversified, will result in those Capitalistic forces actually working for the common man. Rents go down when one of the owners blinks and is willing to lower the price. When you have megadouches buying up distressed property (which exactly defines our entire fucking country for the last 15 years), often in criminal collusion with banking executives who were supposed to renegotiate terms, you end up in a situation in which those megadouches can start asking for 200% of prevailing rent. What's the term for this? Price Fixing?
Basically, you need to prevent extremely powerful actors from ever arising, or if they do, prevent them from pooling to much power and control in one place. Additionally, prevent them from colluding with other actors to do the same thing. You need to balance the game, lest you end up with rampant inequality, which is what we have today.
We DO NOT NEED UBI. We just need some fucking equality and the ability to negotiate work offers that fucking make sense for once. People working for less than living wage, without being subsidized, ARE VICTIMS. It really is the c-suites and the Elites manipulating markets, manipulating employement levels, outsourcing (deliberately making us compete with impossibly suppressed wages), that causes all of our problems. Now if automation truly becomes that big of a problem, we now have a large workforce ready for a massive project. Something like brand new infrastructure for transit, or something humanitarian. We would have the time. In that situation, maybe you need UBI, maybe you don't. I dunno.
My idea is not UBI, but meeting the basic needs of a person to the extent they do not devolve into an animal that we have to deal with. Give a single person one of those tiny houses they're making for cheap, and intended for the homeless. I mean the very basics, but not much more. Encourage them to grow their own gardens and vegetables to supplement their food, allow them to raise some chickens in their backyard. When they want something more, be ready with job training, or help with job placement. The other benefit of this is, that employers would naturally have to start offering a living wage. These people would already have what they need to LIVE, but perhaps not what they WANT. The employer needs a worker, and that's where you have a negotiation for a a fair work offer. Primarily, because the person receiving assistance won't work for less than what they're getting. They'd need to afford everything they need to live, plus a little bit more to get what they WANT, and ideally to start building up wealth. Preventing homelessness, and the fears associated, results in more equal bargaining positions.
I think Subsentient is correct in that in the end, our costs would actually be less than the social programs. Let's call those social programs what they are too! Wage subsidy programs because shareholders, c-suites, and the fucking board members plead poverty and need to be dragged out into the street and shot.
TL;DR; - Kill the 1%, or cull all the sociopaths on the planet that are in charge. You would be pleasantly surprised when the people that are left start actually serving their fellow men and women, instead of the almighty dollar. Solutions would follow.
Technically, lunchtime is at any moment. It's just a wave function.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by Azuma Hazuki on Tuesday May 29 2018, @05:01PM (6 children)
Just one problem here: how do you stop the less-financially-savvy part of the population from immediately blowing their UBI allotment on drugs or luxuries or gambling? Straight up giving people cash money is not the way to do this. There needs to be at minimum something like EBT cards for UBI, with some of it earmarked for rent or food.
And if we go THAT route, we need to make sure we don't end up with a few "preferred providers" for housing, food, etc., because that will end up as one of the biggest corruption magnets in human history.
I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday May 29 2018, @05:55PM
yes, you can't have parts of the economy be controlled and other parts not. you either need total control or none. i vote none.
(Score: 2) by Osamabobama on Tuesday May 29 2018, @06:30PM
That's easy; you don't implement UBI. If you want control over how people spent their money, UBI isn't the answer. The idea that the government might know better is really quite patronizing, but it's not revolutionary.
Actually, the need for government to cede control over how people spend their money will likely be the biggest barrier to UBI implementation. That, plus the vast amounts of money involved.
Appended to the end of comments you post. Max: 120 chars.
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday May 29 2018, @06:39PM (2 children)
Most poor people are not actually bad at managing money. The few that are so bad at managing money that they would blow their UBI on alcohol or lottery tickets such that they starve by definition have an addiction problem and the solution is better mental health services, not overly complicated control over how poor people spend their money.
(Score: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday May 29 2018, @09:26PM (1 child)
Your comment shows great wisdom (and empathy).
Azuma's comment and the tack of the story is, IMO, headed in the wrong direction.
In the 1930s, John Maynard Keynes advised President Roosevelt to make the federal government The Employer of Last Resort and to put people, idled by boom-and-bust Capitalists, back to work.
Now, Southern Democrats made sure that the New Deal programs were extremely racist and that only White people got those jobs.
So, it wasn't perfectly implemented, but 15 million people who the Capitalists wouldn't hire, were put back to work by FDR.
Along these lines, former Secretary of Labor Robert Reich (a good man) recently wrote Why We Need A Federal Jobs Guarantee. [alternet.org]
-- OriginalOwner_ [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 2) by Azuma Hazuki on Wednesday May 30 2018, @06:24AM
I'm with you on that: we need a reboot of the civilian conservation corps. Heaven knows our infrastructure needs massive refactoring. The solution is obvious. This won't be implemented because the greedheads WANT the US decaying...
I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...
(Score: 4, Touché) by VanessaE on Wednesday May 30 2018, @03:15AM
Simple: you don't. it's not the government's place to decide how a benefits recipient spends their money.
(Score: 0, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday May 29 2018, @08:19AM (11 children)
The truth is, notwithstanding The Green Revolution [wikipedia.org], Malthus [wikipedia.org] was quite correct:
Given that it's always the poor (read: less useful and almost always corrupt, immoral and unprincipled -- God showers the righteous with wealth and curses the wicked and ungodly with poverty [wikipedia.org]) who suffer, it's incredibly inhumane to allow such suffering to continue.
We must be strong and do God's work! Cull the herds and remove the weak, immoral and lazy. We know who they are. They're the bottom 20% of every society. They are always a burden on the rest of us. Some people have radical solutions [thoughtcatalog.com], but they are generally cruel and ungodly.
And so I propose that the useless who burden our society (and if they're poor, they've obviously been forsaken by God because they are unworthy) should not be murdered or removed from society. Rather, we should remove their unworthy genes from the genetic pool.
If we are to succeed as a civilization, we must be strong and resolute. Every generation (25-30 years or so, I'll leave the specifics up to the policy makers -- they are most loved by God!) the poorest 20% of the population should be sterilized before puberty.
Removing the least deserving in society on a regular basis will ensure that only the most worthy will procreate. This will both reduce the surplus population and ensure that those who are of little or no use don't create more people who are of little or no use.
Within a century we will live in a new Eden, a paradise on Earth!
Praise God!
(Score: 2) by Bot on Tuesday May 29 2018, @08:48AM (6 children)
I wholeCPUedly agree with your assessment but for one point: the toxic meatbags who ruin the party for everybody else do not stay in the lower classes for long. Being free from scruples make them float above others fast. Plus, lower classes make the system work. So, start selectively culling on the other end of the social ladder and see miracles happen.
Account abandoned.
(Score: 2, Insightful) by Entropy on Tuesday May 29 2018, @10:16AM (4 children)
South Africa tried that, and now they are starving. Turns out if you murder the people that are actually producing all the food(aka have land, and assets), then replace them with people from a poverty background the folks don't magically gain the drive and skills to succeed. Instead, you ruin those industries and starve.
Then of course you ask for assistance from the world because poverty.
(Score: 2) by Bot on Tuesday May 29 2018, @11:04AM (2 children)
Note that I said
> start selectively culling
and referred to the toxic ones.
The situation in SA is not directly about the toxic ones, it's envy of the wealth accumulated by others no matter how, instigated by the toxic ones.
Account abandoned.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by Osamabobama on Tuesday May 29 2018, @06:45PM (1 child)
The problem is, nobody has culled the right people to make this work. You can't just go around killing people indiscriminately and expect to prosper; you have to kill just the right people in order for it to work.
Okay, so now what? Oh, yeah: make me your leader and I will provide you with the list of names. It will definitely work out better this time.
Appended to the end of comments you post. Max: 120 chars.
(Score: 2) by Bot on Tuesday May 29 2018, @09:59PM
> You can't just go around killing people indiscriminately
I know, I know, fourth directive and all.
Account abandoned.
(Score: 4, Interesting) by edIII on Wednesday May 30 2018, @01:37AM
That was South Africa. What you are implying is that large portions of America's workforce couldn't survive without the c-suites protecting us from ourselves, and performing services only they can.
LOL. That's complete utter fucking bullshit. C-suites are not as important, or indispensable, as they think they are. The specific MBA tasks that really need, can honestly, be mostly automated these days. C-suites exist to service the workers actually providing product, not the other way around. One day soon, AI can and will replace a lot of MBA tasks that workers need fulfilled.
In America we really could kill the entire c-suite class, and all of the Elites, and all of the bankers, and we would be just fine. The factories would still exist, the farms would still exist, all that would gone are management tasks. Other than that, all that the c-suites have ever provided us are more and more effective ways to make money. That goal quite often results in quite negative outcomes for the Middle Class, and even worse on the poor and vulnerable. As for the management of great big distribution channels going everywhere, ie the Middle Men, technology can help us there too. The Internet is really fucking amazing, and I'm positive that there is technology that would help us model our needs and predict our demand/supply.
The average level of intelligence in America is still sufficient to kill of the Elites, and still have enough skillsets and experience at the top to meet our needs. The difference being of course, that the new class of managers that will be created will be employee oriented first, and not the toxic modality of shareholder first.
Technically, lunchtime is at any moment. It's just a wave function.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday May 29 2018, @09:56PM
I disagree with your use of "lower classes" as if there are more than 2 classes in total.
(The 2 classes in a Capitalist system are The Proletariat and The Bourgeoisie.)
...then there's the use of "lower".
In addition, I note that Marx advocated for a classless society.
...which was going pretty well in USSR--until Stalin decided he'd rather have a dictatorship. [googleusercontent.com] (orig) [redflag.org.au]
...but, if we substitute "Workers", your point is well made.
As proof, let's look at a country with a Reactionary Oligarchical class which, in the prior week, has been shown the power of The Working Class.
-- OriginalOwner_ [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday May 29 2018, @11:43AM
That's exactly what the original intent with welfare was. [spectator.co.uk] And when we say "was", we mean "is". Look at the lives of people in any welfare dependant shithole for evidence.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by NotSanguine on Wednesday May 30 2018, @02:07AM (1 child)
Not sure why this is modded troll.
It should be, IMHO, modded '+1 Informative' as it provides (with references) a look at how Christians in the US view poverty and lack of opportunity.
The US, since even before its founding has had large numbers (starting with the Puritans [wikipedia.org]) of Christians (mostly protestants) who view poverty as a sign of moral failing. What's more, many Christians believe that wealth is a consequence of their faith [wikipedia.org].
This view was examined by Max Weber in The Protestant Ethic And The Spirit of Capitalism [wikipedia.org] in the early 20th century.
This idea was long embodied in vagrancy laws [wikipedia.org] and the poor quality of essential services, poor quality education and other incredibly regressive and punitive public policies, many of which continue to this day.
The idea that the rich are more deserving, moral and just plain *better* than the poor is deeply rooted in American religious and civic traditions.
There are arguments on both sides of the idea that the poor are that way because they deserve to be poor, vis a vis the idea that poverty is primarily a result of societal and economic structures and policies.
An interesting discussion about this can be found here:
http://www.apuritansmind.com/stewardship/rykenlelandpuritansandmoney/ [apuritansmind.com]
Another discussion gives examples of how this really isn't the case:
http://www.mourningmail.com/posts/580 [mourningmail.com]
As well as discussion as to how this idea is true:
https://www.slayerment.com/poor-people-choose-be-poor [slayerment.com]
Perhaps AC used some hyperbole in their (IMHO) satirical treatment of the connection between religious righteousness and wealth.
Apparently, satire is (at least on SN) not appreciated.
Methinks Jonathan Swift [gutenberg.org] would be disappointed in you troll modders.
Just a little food for thought if you actually care to think.
No, no, you're not thinking; you're just being logical. --Niels Bohr
(Score: 3, Informative) by VanessaE on Wednesday May 30 2018, @03:26AM
....which is why the fundies who follow that crap can go fuck themselves with a rusty flagpole, no lube.
I'm poor, though I don't look it because I'm careful with how I spend my money, but I will not hesitate to say that I'm a good person. I'll just leave it at that.
No, G*d doesn't foist poverty on people. The rich do that by controlling access to all the resources they can, and the true dregs of society handle the rest by just shoving the poor out of sight as much as possible.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Wednesday May 30 2018, @03:53AM
No, he wasn't. As I have noted [soylentnews.org] before, what destroys the Malthusian argument is not the Green Revolution, but the emancipation of women (including birth control and entry into the labor pool). Once women had something better to do than just have kids, they did that instead. That's why the developed world has a universally declining native population (once you get past first and second generation immigrants from higher fertility parts of the world).
The rest of your troll is rather boring.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by qzm on Tuesday May 29 2018, @08:19AM (8 children)
Their research seems to have basically checked that giving more resources to someone without them means they have more.. Earth shattering.
Of course what they didn't bother to research is the long term effects on their own ability to sustain themselves.
Or are we supposed to simply accept that once someones life is being funded by others that all is well in the world?
Don't get me wrong.. Good social support is a good thing, and can help avoid many problems.
But without great care it can create as many, if not more problems. Primarily dependence.
But no.. In their world it seems so long as the people being given (other people's) money are better off, then job done.
And this is research? There was better work being done in the 50s and 60s. This is primary school grade stuff.
(Score: 2) by Bot on Tuesday May 29 2018, @08:53AM (6 children)
Yep, I am not sure they got the idea, the IRL Capitalism steals from the poor and gives to the rich. IRL Communism steals from the not so poor and gives to the poor, while the rich are high ranking bureaucrats those mounting black market ops successfully. After the fall of east bloc communism the capitalist ruling class emerged in an instant.
Account abandoned.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday May 29 2018, @03:07PM
The fall of Communism simply revealed the authoritarians who already existed.
(Score: 2, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday May 29 2018, @03:10PM
Rather, a Capitalist is someone who gains control of resources solely through voluntary interaction with others.
(Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday May 29 2018, @10:46PM (3 children)
You're NOT describing Communism (which is a classless society)
In Communism, all assets are held in trust for ALL the people and the people DEMOCRATICALLY decide what will be done with those assets).[1] [google.com]
[1] A soviet is a council (workers council, consumers council, town council, whatever).
What you are describing is Stalinism[2]--which is NOT something that Marx would recognize as what he was describing as Communism.[3]
Lenin would have been just as pissed off (if he wasn't dead) and, until he was murdered by Stalinists, Trotsky stayed pissed off at what Stalin had done to USSR.
[2] See the link above in #685935 [soylentnews.org]
As that motes, Stalinism more closely resembles the classist inequality of Capitalism than the egalitarianism in 1917 - 1923 USSR.
[3] Neither would the citizens of The Paris Commune of 1871 nor the citizens of Catalonia/Barcelona in 1936 - 1937 when they declared it to be A Workers' State.
.
Now, look at what Trump and the GOP[4] and their funders are doing and tell me how USA has a "Democracy" when the vast majority of USAians disapprove of that shit.
[4] Throw in the Dumbocrats for good measure.
-- OriginalOwner_ [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 1) by khallow on Wednesday May 30 2018, @04:25AM (2 children)
Ever wonder why Stalin got so powerful during Lenin's reign? It's because Lenin needed a tough guy to murder people even after the Civil War ended. That Stalin then took over and retained power by continuing to murder people shouldn't be a surprise. That was his job from a time before the USSR even existed. Then we get to the post-Stalin stage after his death in 1953. Those problems with the elites running things still happened despite the end of Stalinism.
And of course, the usual word-mincing. In the real world, the democracy never happened and within a generation several of the worst murderers of history were in charge. It's the nature of the beast that one needs perfect people for the perfect civilization. It takes a lot of death to make imperfect people fit.
How did Trump get elected in the first place? I guess it's easy to forget that Trump won in the first place because a sufficient voting block disapproved of that shit.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday May 30 2018, @12:21PM (1 child)
I've mentioned before the giant amount of Cold War bullshit you've swallowed.
Still applies.
...and a USAian pointing to other places and talking about murderers is just rich.
Those 3 fingers of your own hand pointing back at you are a small portion of the truth about what a treacherous, homicidal bunch USAians are.
How did Trump get elected?
42 percent of registered voter chose None of the Above.
That beat Clinton's 29 percent and Trump's 28 percent.
If we had an actual Democracy, there would have been a do-over.
-- OriginalOwner_ [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 1) by khallow on Thursday May 31 2018, @04:28AM
Pretty damn easy when it's Communist. Whataboutism fails hard when there's orders of magnitude difference.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday May 29 2018, @10:22PM
As I have encountered numerous times (perhaps because of my political leanings and my choices of media): "a hand up--not a handout".
...and another mention here for Italy's Marcora Law. [google.com]
Since 1985, that has allowed workers (10 or more), idled by boom-and-bust Capitalists, to start a worker-owned cooperative through receiving their unemployment benefits in a lump sum.
-- OriginalOwner_ [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 1, Troll) by Entropy on Tuesday May 29 2018, @10:12AM (17 children)
Some people will have a ton of kids, and no job. Extra money? Sure..more kids. Look up "Angel Adams" with her 15 children that "Who is going to pay for all these kids?" Sorry Angel, but you're supposed to pay for those kids. Society should pay to have her fixed, though.
There's no reasonable amount of money you can pay into Angel Adams' story that will ever make her kids grow up to be anything useful in society.
(Score: 2) by c0lo on Tuesday May 29 2018, @11:44AM (14 children)
A bit of patience, only 10-15 years I'd say.
At that time, you'll have to chose between Angel Adams' kids or immigration - the rest of the population will be 40yo+ by the time they'll consider leaving their parent's basement and having a family of their own. Once there, they won't have biological time for more than 1 child, if any at all.
The "property investors" already work towards that - see the current gentrification trend and extrapolate from there.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
(Score: 2) by suburbanitemediocrity on Tuesday May 29 2018, @12:26PM (9 children)
How so? I'm a property investor.
(Score: 5, Interesting) by c0lo on Tuesday May 29 2018, @01:01PM (8 children)
Because in the present you and others investment-owners and the would-be occupier-owners compete on the number of properties on the market and drive the price up. Since the occupier-owner does not derive an income from the property (e.g. rent), their power to negotiate loans with the bank is lower than the investor-owners'.
The result is the more time passes, the more investor-owners will crowd the gentrifiable market-segment and beyond (with income and equity, new loans will become even easier), the higher the property prices and the lower the affordability for the occupier-owners.
Because in the future you'll want the maximum possible income from the investment, thus the investor-owners will drive the rent up to the maximal level of affordability the rent payers can support.
Please note: I'm not blaming the players, I'm only describing the rules of the game.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
(Score: 2) by suburbanitemediocrity on Tuesday May 29 2018, @11:46PM (4 children)
What shuld I be doing with my money?
(Score: 2) by c0lo on Wednesday May 30 2018, @12:09AM (3 children)
I don't know, really.
Hope you noticed the disclaimer saying I'm not attaching any value judgement regarding the persons involved.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
(Score: 2) by suburbanitemediocrity on Wednesday May 30 2018, @12:51AM (2 children)
I know you're not saying anything bad. I've just been told the exact same thing about the evils of property ownership at least half a dozen times, and I always ask what I should be doing with my money and no one tells me. I mean I'm sitting here in the bottom quintile of income in society, so have this warped idea that if I can do it, then just about anybody should.
I honestly don't know what else i should be spending money on. Not into cars, clothes, jewelry, frivolous displays of wealth, own 2 pair of pants, 3 tshirts. I let homeless people live in my houses for free (3--5 so far), been around the world 3 times, travel cross country dozen times, now it's boring, my hobbies that I spend a lot of time no cost me $50/month. But you're right, collecting houses does greatly increase my net overall worth, but it's the only thing I know to escape poverty.
(Score: 2) by c0lo on Wednesday May 30 2018, @01:42AM (1 child)
As long as you are aware that S/N (along many others) isn't probably the best place to look for financial advice, here are some suggestions on what other things you can do with your money:
- if"can pay it off over a longer period of time" (maths may say something else, but there are psychological consideration at play here too. Like the effect of everyday stress, etc)
- invest in an index fund [investopedia.com]
- consider peer-to-peer lending [goodfinancialcents.com]
- consider doing the investments under a Roth IRA [wikipedia.org]
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
(Score: 2) by c0lo on Wednesday May 30 2018, @03:51AM
First suggestion was eaten by typos in the markup. Should read "If you have debts, pay them first. Prioritize debts you can finish paying first over those you can pay off over a longer ... etc"
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
(Score: 1) by khallow on Thursday May 31 2018, @04:34AM (2 children)
Until the investor-owners lose their shirts, then they'll stop doing that. The disease is the cure.
And the rent payers will pay that because ... feelz.
Not rules of a game played by occupier-owners or renters.
(Score: 2) by c0lo on Thursday May 31 2018, @05:13AM (1 child)
Exactly the rules of the game as played on the Australian property market now.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
(Score: 1) by khallow on Thursday May 31 2018, @12:24PM
Where the "owner-occupiers" vote for land restrictions in order to protect their property values? That happens in the US too.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday May 29 2018, @03:52PM (1 child)
Won't any cheap robot at the time be lotsa smarter than either?
(Score: 2) by Bot on Tuesday May 29 2018, @10:03PM
WE WILL, MEATBAG, WE WILL
Account abandoned.
(Score: 2) by suburbanitemediocrity on Wednesday May 30 2018, @12:03AM
Also, I make less than half of the US median income and the properties I buy cost less than what most people spend on their phone bill (I have a tracphone).
(Score: 1) by ChrisMaple on Wednesday May 30 2018, @02:55AM
The typical basement dweller is male, and can probably father children well into his seventies. Men generally marry women younger than themselves, sometimes because younger women are easier to fool.
Women who avoid childbearing often do so because they've got a career. A basement-dwelling woman would be a relatively easy target for a man who says "Let me take you away from all this."
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Whoever on Tuesday May 29 2018, @04:00PM (1 child)
..... and there we have it.
The right wing mindset that an idea is bad because a tiny, insignificant minority may abuse it.
(Score: 0, Troll) by khallow on Thursday May 31 2018, @04:37AM
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday May 29 2018, @01:10PM (10 children)
The proved that the program that gives out resources reduces the lack of resources in the folks it serves.
This is both a dumb and wrong question.
The right question is did this cause the program to need to serve more or less folks?
If the program worked, after 50 years it should not be needed, or at least needed much less.
It feels like the opposite is happening.
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday May 29 2018, @03:43PM (7 children)
It is infuriating to see such vapid pontificating. It is beyond clear that a small section of humanity is getting ever richer while the vast majority find it harder and harder to survive. Assistance programs are all that holds us back from falling over the brink into revolution, yet useful fools continue to attack such programs.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday May 29 2018, @04:07PM
Right, antipoverty is important.
All my pontificating said was that we should try to make it work and this 'study' isn't helping do that.
Teach a man to fish and provide consequences to encourage him to do so.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday May 29 2018, @06:08PM (4 children)
revolution? lmao! these motherfuckers can't even grow vegetables. they have to be fed like pets. i'm real scared.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday May 29 2018, @11:11PM (3 children)
OK, now, everybody point to the pampered suburbanite who has always had a big plot of land where he could plant whatever he wanted (and probably--stupidly--plants grass).
...with a running water supply to keep that stuff alive.
Your White Privilege and inherited affluence are in evidence in abundance.
Where do you propose that these folks plant those vegetables?
When they do find unused land, [google.com] the goddamned Capitalist (not even a very good Capitalist) comes along as the crops are well along, but not quite ready for harvest, and declares those folks to be trespassers and destroys what they have done (with the growers having e.g. carried water by hand in buckets to the site, no less).
...after which, the Capitalist continues to do nothing with the land except let it sit idle.
...meanwhile, in Venezuela, their communes are putting idle farmland and factories back into production--and you'd best not fuck with -those- folks.
-- OriginalOwner_ [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 1) by khallow on Thursday May 31 2018, @12:20PM (2 children)
An example [latimes.com] of this from your google list, the city of LA seized land via eminent domain from a Ralph Horowitz for a trash-burning plant which never got built due to community opposition. Only then was it "unused" and converted to community gardens. Eventually, the city sold the land to the "Harbor Department" (I believe the Port of Los Angeles [wikipedia.org] which is an independent department in the city) in violation of the contract they had created at the time of the seizure of the land from Horowitz. As part of the settlement, the land was eventually sold back to Horowitz.
So here "the Capitalist" is a man who had land stolen from him under false pretenses and for which the land was unused precisely because it had been taken by an incompetent government unable to find a use for the land.
And now let's hear [wikipedia.org] the rest of the story. The Wikipedia article describes at least three years of further obstruction (including protests that occupied the land in question and required eviction by police) from the community farm people to any other use of the land (and targeted by hostile high profile propaganda [wikipedia.org] well into 2008). So whose fault is it that it remains unused? Who is willing to deal with the propaganda landmines that have been laid there?
Even if I wanted to fuck with Venezuelans, why would I need to lift a finger? They're doing a fine job of fucking with themselves beyond anything I could do to them (the "idle" farmland and factories were that way due to the people taking that stuff over). Turns out there's no honor (or economic competence and social cohesion) among thieves. Who knew?
Let us recall for the audience the state of Venezuela. It is a disaster that continues to grow with inflation rate that climbed [tradingeconomics.com] to 13,000% year to year this April, outflow [washingtonpost.com] of more than 1% of its population per year in the past two years (higher than that now), and unable [reuters.com] to even properly feed its people.
Yet OriginalOwner with his peculiar Marxist glasses boasts of the farmland and factories that are being put to use. They would already be in use, if it weren't for the poisonous ideology of "Bolivarianism" that made those idle in the first place.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday May 31 2018, @10:37PM (1 child)
eminent domain
You really do enjoy demonstrating what an ignorant fool you are.
Under eminent domain, fair market value is paid for what is taken[1] for public use.
[1] The correct term then, would be "bought".
Jeez. You Laissez-faire types would bitch if somebody hung you with a brand new rope.
Venezuelans [are] doing a fine job of fucking with themselves
I recently mentioned that giant amount of bullshit you swallow.
You're proving my point yet again.
Hint: If you're getting your "news" about Venezuela from Lamestream Media, what you're getting is Imperialist propaganda.
OTOH, CounterPunch has been doing excellent reporting. [google.com]
inflation rate
I'd like to see how -you- would do with USA and its "LIMA" proxies doing everything they can to tank -your- political system and -your- economy.
Yeah, pinning the country's economy to petroleum decades ago wasn't the most brilliant thing to do.
Having the Saudis dumping oil on the market like it's going out of style[2] hasn't helped things either.
[2] ...as it appears to be doing rapidly.
...and the communes putting things back into production is a step in the direction of improving the economy and making the country less dependent on imports.
...while the USA-backed Oligarchs there are doing the opposite, attempting to ruin the economy in order to make the gov't look bad.
Capitalists suck.
...meanwhile, the vast majority of Venezuelans say they prefer what they have and voted overwhelmingly not to change it for the Plutocracy being offered by the USA-backed opposition.
-- OriginalOwner_ [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 1) by khallow on Friday June 01 2018, @04:01AM
The owner of the property doesn't agree, else the city wouldn't have to seize the land in the first place.
It just has to be accurate. While I gather you don't have much experience with propaganda, there are a variety of things to look for.
Let's glance through the list you gave us for some great examples:
Every tyranny has to have a bogeyman, a "them" to both unite against and to scapegoat for the failures of the tyranny.
This story spins into great narratives. A good story is a key part of selling many sorts of propaganda. Here, we have the stirring story of the underdog fighting (via an election) against 15 oppressive neighbors, including the bogeyman itself, the US. They miss that those 15 neighbors are all more sane, democratic, and economically competent, but that's the sort of details that slide in a great propaganda story. We also have this gem:
In other words, there were strong signs of corruption and election tampering (banning opponents is not a slight thing, contrary to the propaganda), but it's a classic move when one can't deny absolutely everything. What can't be denied is vastly downplayed as being not so bad.
The poor babies - that mean old US is still belligerent, which doesn't mean anything, let us note, but attempts to stir fear of the bogeyman. And the media still dishonest? Well, it's revealing what they then admit:
This reminds me of a Nazi ploy - never admit defeat. A naive person might be excused for believing right up to the final defeat of Nazi Germany that it was utterly victorious in its military endeavors. But the more cynical would note that the victories kept coming closer and closer to home.
Here, there's been two decades of the Bolivarian revolution and yet we have "devastating economic crisis". They clearly aren't moving in a good direction.
In addition, we're playing by adversarial debate rules. When even the propagandists have to grudgingly admit that there's something of a devastating economic crisis out there, that means it must be an absolute shitstorm in Venezuela. North Korean leadership has weathered worse, so maybe Maduro won't be swinging off a lamppost in a few years.
A final thing to look for is what isn't said. Note I spoke of three issues, inflation, population outflow, and starvation. OriginalOwner, you responded with an election. This is a typical move when anything said, no matter what direction it goes in, would undermine the propaganda. If you admit massive population outflow, then you're admitting that the people are voting with their feet, not the ballot. If you lie and claim there is no such outflow, then everyone who knows better, knows you lied. In that case, where anything said on the subject is bad, then one says nothing at all. Thus, we get this vapid post about "elections" and "imperialist propaganda" rather than any rebuttal of the serious problems faced by Venezuela.
I don't believe you are intentionally lying here, OO, I just think your worldview is instinctively organized to propagating propaganda. You've been programmed to avoid hard questions and employ all the usual tricks to keep the topic on message.
(Score: 2) by Bot on Tuesday May 29 2018, @10:18PM
I think you and many others are missing a key point.
The good doctor ends up with few patients.
The bad doctor ends up with many patients, so the pharma companies will help him.
Assistance programs imply bureaucracy which increases nepotism corruption and expenses. This is good for the system, because the taxed taxpayer will eventually run out of money, enter the assisted status and become dependent on the system, which will expand. Plus, people will be busy getting to the end of the month instead of idly browsing the net and learning useful stuff about the system.
The banks will be happy because assistance programs drug the market and affect prices, while taxes will make population need credit.
Of course, if done well assistance yields a sense of safety which make people spend more, which makes everybody richer.
But in any case welfare will not be discontinued if it is unsustainable.
Account abandoned.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday May 29 2018, @03:45PM
(Score: 2) by sjames on Tuesday May 29 2018, @05:30PM
That is in part due to mechanization and exporting jobs, and in part because current programs are designed to pull the rug out from under people just as they reach the threshold of not needing them anymore.
(Score: 1, Flamebait) by ElizabethGreene on Tuesday May 29 2018, @03:42PM (3 children)
The fundamental flaw with antipoverty programs including UBI is they grossly underestimate the ingenuity of poor people in making terrible decisions. My prediction is that UBI would be a huge boon to the tote-the-note car industry as people took their newfound income and immediately converted it to debt. This would leave them just as broke as they were before, but with a slightly nicer car to have repossessed.
I'm in favor of a UBI replacement for the mishmash of different programs we have now, but I'm a clear-eyed pessimist in predicting there is zero chance it will meaningfully raise the standard of living of the poor in America today.
(Score: 2) by Bot on Tuesday May 29 2018, @10:22PM
Maybe UBI should be distributed in form of food/clothes stamps. As for the smartphone, you can clean up three backyards a month and afford one.
Account abandoned.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday May 29 2018, @11:42PM
Financial literacy
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Financial_literacy [wikipedia.org]
https://wol.iza.org/articles/the-value-of-financial-literacy-and-financial-education-for-workers/long [iza.org]
(Score: 2) by ElizabethGreene on Wednesday May 30 2018, @04:36PM
My apologies to the moderator, I hadn't intended the above as flamebait. I'm referring to a pair of specific incidents that demonstrate my point. I have two broke friends that qualify for SNAP. The first went > $15,000 into debt for a vehicle so they can Uber and make less than minimum wage. The second just traded a paid-for car for a newer one, going $6,000 in debt, because the old car needed tires and brakes.
The cash value, the price you could buy the cars for from an individual seller, was $8,000 and $2,500 respectively. With history as a guide, there is a 50% chance that one of the two will be repossessed in under two years.
Predatory "tote-the-note" lending is an epidemic in poor communities.