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: 4, Insightful) by Mykl on Monday October 15 2018, @05:23AM (46 children)
Here we go.
TFA says it's better to receive an ownership stake. Explain to me exactly what is different between providing someone income (which they can buy shares with) and shares (which they can sell for income)?
The article also seems to imply that people will be forced to buy that dirty money handed to them. I think you can still join a survivalist cult if you still want to.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by maxwell demon on Monday October 15 2018, @06:23AM (23 children)
The following sentence is telling:
So the author doesn't want the well-being of people. He wants them to be very much non-well, to make them revolt.
The Tao of math: The numbers you can count are not the real numbers.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by Rosco P. Coltrane on Monday October 15 2018, @07:43AM (4 children)
The thing is, it's already the case: most people, even at the bottom rung of society, dream of a revolution but will never actually do it, because the state provides just enough handouts to make them think again. That's what social security is for: it's not meant to help the poor, it's meant to prevent the poor from turning truly violent out of desperation.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday October 15 2018, @09:38AM (1 child)
It is an interesting way to look at it. One problem is that USA doesn't have the level of poverty that is seen in many third world countries. Really, if you are qualifying for food stamps you are better off than millions of people already. The other problem is that poorer people don't revolt, they scamper here and there looking for something to eat - whatever they can - and they don't have time to think about the 'system' and 'society'. Some of them may even kill you if it meant they got to sleep on a couch with beer.
This is a basic flaw in socialism actually which Winston Smith makes in 1984. Poor people never revolt.
Revolutions, and discontent itself, is a function of inequality. This is why Saudi Arabia wasn't revolting before they found oil, and aren't revolting after they found oil.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday October 15 2018, @09:56AM
Everything about Saudi Arabia is pretty revolting tbh.
(Score: 2, Interesting) by fustakrakich on Monday October 15 2018, @02:34PM
Riot Index [ssrn.com]
La politica e i criminali sono la stessa cosa..
(Score: 2) by hemocyanin on Monday October 15 2018, @02:47PM
Gore Vidal has a good quote on this topic with regard to FDR, something along the lines of: "people complained FDR was a traitor to his class -- he saved their ass."
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E76ArLbSABA [youtube.com]
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday October 15 2018, @08:04AM
(Score: 4, Interesting) by darkfeline on Monday October 15 2018, @08:43AM (16 children)
That made me think, would it be better if the masses were living a comfortable, complacent life, or if they were miserable and thus overthrew the ruling class?
History has shown that overthrowing the ruling class doesn't create utopia, just a period of instability that gets filled with a new ruling class, at the expense of many involved.
So should the masses have a comfortable life, or be given a microscopic chance at letting their children become the new ruling class, and otherwise suffering greatly through social instability?
Join the SDF Public Access UNIX System today!
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Monday October 15 2018, @09:47AM (14 children)
What else do people want other than comfortable life?
(Score: 1) by r_a_trip on Monday October 15 2018, @11:21AM (6 children)
Be top dog.
(Score: 2) by c0lo on Monday October 15 2018, @01:41PM (4 children)
"I ain't comfortable enough if I can't make your life miserable" or "I ain't rich enough if you aren't deep into poverty", which of the two you reckon?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday October 15 2018, @02:21PM (3 children)
Psychologists have shown these to be the most destructive traits to the self. Philosophers and religions generally look down on these.
(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
(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.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday October 15 2018, @02:16PM
That's an impossible goal.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Damocles [wikipedia.org]
Stoicism was a much better philosophy which allowed the west to flourish
(Score: 5, Insightful) by rleigh on Monday October 15 2018, @12:55PM (6 children)
Many things. Agency. Purpose. Pride and a sense of place and belonging in society at large. Friendship. A future for you and your family. Comfort isn't the be all and end all of life; once you've got a bare minimum of needs met, like a roof over your head, other factors are more important.
(Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Monday October 15 2018, @01:37PM (2 children)
Maslov's pyramid says that food and shelter, and safety are more important, though.
(Score: 2) by rleigh on Monday October 15 2018, @02:46PM
That would all be part of the "bare minimum of needs" I mentioned above.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday October 15 2018, @03:21PM
(Score: 2) by DeathMonkey on Monday October 15 2018, @06:14PM
Agency, purpose, pride, friends, family: lucky for us all of those are free!
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday October 15 2018, @08:15PM (1 child)
Those are things that no amount of government can give.
(Score: 2) by rleigh on Monday October 15 2018, @08:41PM
They can take them away however, and IMO UBI would have the potential to do so.
(Score: 2) by dry on Tuesday October 16 2018, @04:53AM
While overthrowing the ruling class seldom if ever works out for the better, the threat can motivate the ruling class to not be so harsh in their rule. In the west, the threat of a socialist revolution led to improved living conditions for the average person in the early 20th century.
(Score: 4, Interesting) by vux984 on Monday October 15 2018, @08:58AM (14 children)
"Explain to me exactly what is different between providing someone income (which they can buy shares with) and shares (which they can sell for income)?"
Here we go, indeed. Your comment completely misses the point.
a) providing someone just enough income to eat and shelter means they won't have money to buy any sort of shares with. You need hundreds of thousands in savings before you are getting even a few hundred a week in dividends. So don't claim providing someone with a basic poverty level income is somehow going to enable them to accumulate hundreds of thousands worth of shares in any reasonable time frame.
b) providing somone shares, doesn't imply they can be 'sold' per se. Giving them shares which can be sold would in fact be counter productive, because everyone at the bottom rung could (would) be forced out of their holdings the minute they had a bad month, leaving them with nothing. And they'd be accumulated by the people with means and wealth recreating the exact problem we are trying to solve. So, NO, nobody is suggesting doing that.
There are OTHER ways to structure ownership; for example, where each citizen gets a share allocation that cannot be bought and sold, that are simply attached to citizenship itself. And the "UBI" would be a dividend on that share holding.
Frankly, I agree with it, and think it is a much better way of approaching a UBI. There can be other related share classes that can be bought and sold on the free markets, alongside the non-transferrable citizenship share (perhaps also restricted to citizens? and local corporations? or perhaps not?) ; to create liquidity, and help establish the share value, etc. Shares from the deceased and expats are collected in, and new shares are issued to newborns (or perhaps children as they come of age) and immigrants claiming citizenship.
(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.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday October 15 2018, @12:21PM
So instead of letting citizens vote, and giving them a monthly "UBI" check...
You're going to give them a non-transferable share, which entitles them to vote, and to receive a monthly "dividend" check.
I don't see any difference in function, only in what you choose to call it.
But establishing the share value is meaningless -- the only point of a value would be to buy or sell those shares, which can't be done.
As for "creating liquidity", I really don't understand what you're getting at, or what would be gained by having these transferable shares in any way linked to your non-transferable citizenship shares?
(Score: 1) by khallow on Monday October 15 2018, @01:43PM (7 children)
Shares that can't be sold are an accounting fiction. It would be just another income scheme.
What is owned and why are we to pay a dividend on it?
As to citizenship, the deal killer for me is a UBI that incentivizes people to vote to make the UBI larger.
(Score: 2) by Immerman on Monday October 15 2018, @07:18PM (2 children)
> the deal killer for me is a UBI that incentivizes people to vote to make the UBI larger.
No reason it has to - make it something simple, for example: everyone pays 10% off the top of their income as a UBI tax, which gets redistributed equally. Anyone with an above-average income is incentivized to keep the UBI small. Now, if income inequality is very large, then those with below-average income will have a sizable majority - but that majority dwindles rapidly as income inequality is moderated. It'll never go away completely, but there's lots of people, like yourself, that think the system is dangerous, and will tend to vote against their own economic interests to keep it in check.
Meanwhile, most UBI proposals I've seen are a bit more complicated, with the break-even point, where taxes fully neutralize the UBI and convert it from a net-positive to net negative, positioned somewhere in the high-lower class, or low-middle class. Meaning that most people pay more in taxes to support the UBI, than they receive as a UBI. Which gives the majority a financial incentive to vote for a reduction in UBI, allowing it to exist only so long as enough well-off individuals are willing to support it despite it taking money out of their own pockets.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Monday October 15 2018, @08:37PM (1 child)
What happens when politicians promise they'll raise it to 20%? Or 90%?
(Score: 2) by Immerman on Tuesday October 16 2018, @02:39AM
Depends how unequal the income distribution is, and how many people feel that promoting a strong work ethic is more important than putting a few more dollars in their own pocket. The less unequal the income distribution, the smaller the number of people who have to be willing to vote "work ethics" to tilt the balance towards a lower UBI.
Considering that the entire Republican party has largely dedicated itself to convincing working-class people to vote against their own financial best-interests, I'm not overly concerned that it's a terribly difficult thing to accomplish.
(Score: 2) by vux984 on Friday October 19 2018, @01:41AM (3 children)
Many private and public companies have share classes that require board approval to transfer, and are effectively non-transferrable. They absolutely exist as an accounting fiction, but just like other accounting fictions they have a lot of uses.
1/nth the country itself. 1/nth all public owned assets, mineral rights, rights of way, bandwidth allocations, parks, tax revenues, fee revenues, licensing revenues, infrastructure, goodwill, ...
Same reason coca-cola pays dividends. The shareholders want them, and need them to attract investment, etc. This is why i handwaved linking them to other classes of free market shares; to keep the system accountable.
What exactly keeps the shareholders in coca-cola from voting for unsustainable dividends?
Having said that, it certainly raises the question what dividend level would in fact sustainable? How is that amount determined? Is it even non-zero? (Given that nation states currently exist as issuers of debt and printers of currency, these aren't exactly trivial questions... ) But I suspect 1/nth the country is worth something, don't you? And again, this is why i handwaved linking them to other classes of free market shares; to help keep the system accountable and sustainable.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Friday October 19 2018, @02:51AM (2 children)
Two things: first, that they are for the most part financially and economically literate, and second, it'll hurt the value of transferable Coca Cola shares which is a significant portion of the value of the wealth invested with Coca Cola. Unfortunately, neither is true with UBI. You have a large portion of the voter population which is not so understanding of finance and economics. And it won't matter to a similar portion whether there is value left in the US after they're done with it. They don't lose out financially unless things fall apart too soon.
One merely needs to look (in the US) at the ongoing problems with Social Security and Medicare/Medicaid to see that there's enough people with these sorts of problems to mess up UBI.
(Score: 2) by vux984 on Friday October 19 2018, @03:49AM (1 child)
Again, I've handwaved linking these non-transferable shares to a more traditional free market tradeable share; precisely to get those 'self-regulating' / 'self-interested' aspects.
It simply wouldn't be up to the owners of the non-transferrable shares to vote themselves an increased dividend to unsustainable levels.
Nor would it be up to politicians to promise to up the dividend to buy votes.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Friday October 19 2018, @03:43PM
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday October 15 2018, @09:33AM (3 children)
Income is socialism. You get money to live off. But it also means subsidized living which could mean more poverty.
Receiving shares of means of production means communism. Communism is that the "workers" or the "people" own the means of production.
Anyway, both probably not ideal. But arguing that UBI is bad because shares are better, it's ridicules. The premise of UBI is to allow people to have a safety net without worrying about other things. But in reality, what it will means is that the prices will rise so UBI is eaten anyway. Anyone not raising prices enough would be stupid. For example, when local government provided $10,000 to install geothermal heating, suddenly cost of installing such systems went up by nearly that much! From $8000 to $15000 or $17000. Why? Because the subsidy was free money!
Subsidies in general, like UBI, can turn out to be double edged swords. Maybe better to stick with food stamps?
(Score: 1) by khallow on Monday October 15 2018, @01:36PM (2 children)
Or raking it in. Remember the dynamics of competitive systems! Costs won't necessarily track UBI. And many commercial sectors (particularly those of the sort that sell to UBI customers) would sell at a few percent over cost.
It might be comforting to think that, but it's probably not true, unless UBI is paid for with money creation.
(Score: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Monday October 15 2018, @03:30PM (1 child)
Yeah. That's why medical bills and college tuitions have remained so reasonably priced over the past few decades. Prices never rise to track subsidies.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Monday October 15 2018, @09:46PM
Both those spaces of policies heavily encourage demand in specific sectors. Meanwhile having more money from a UBI is merely a moderate encouragement for broad consumption over a wide range.
Further, much of that is not competitive. You can choose to some degree your primary care provider (depending on your insurance policies in the US). But you have little control other than dropping them for who they choose to work with, and none at all over any emergency rooms you show up in or who at that point decides to bill you for what.
I don't see either of those two going up over UBI.
The only real threat is real estate prices. And those will most likely go up in areas that heavily restrict growth (and already have high real estate prices). Your UBIer isn't going to live there unless they happen to own the place free and clear and have some money saved up on the side.
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Monday October 15 2018, @03:31PM
I'm curious. Did you think about this unusual perspective before you discounted it or did you start reading with the aim formulating arguments? It's not really a relevant argument from my perspective but I'm willing to at least try understanding where the author is coming from and consider his points.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday October 16 2018, @12:05AM (1 child)
Exactly. Giving people free shit (including healthcare) is never a goid idea. I have arguments with my wife about paying for her fathers diabites medicine. The motherfucker wont change his diet. Then we drive him to doctor to have eye injections cause he is going blind ontop of that. Total waste
(Score: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday October 16 2018, @01:51AM
I take it you would support voluntary euthanasia -- since you assign so little value to your father inlaw's life?