CDZ Another conversation about Universal Income

[Mac1958]

Jordan Peterson is a really interesting guy, and has some fascinating thoughts on the universal income issue that seems to be popping up more often nowadays.

My position has been that productivity, income and skill sets have all become so out-of-balance that we may not be able to re-balance them, so some kind of universal income may be necessary.

Peterson disagrees, and lays it out here. By the way, this is a very smart guy who is not paralyzed by partisan thought, and likes to instead look for areas of agreement on which to build. Crazy, huh?

JimBowie1958 , I think you'd find this interesting:

"So we can have an intelligent discussion between the Left and the Right, and the discussion would go something like this - You need innovation, you pay for innovation with inequality, but you need to bind inequality because if it is too intense then things destabilize. Okay, we can agree on that, we've got the parameters set. Now we have to start thinking very carefully through how to do the re-distribution issue, we don't know how to do that. So you might say well, we'd have a guaranteed income for people, which I think is a horrible solution, by the way, but it addresses the right problem, which is we're hyper-productive, the spoils go to those at the top, and some of those resources have to be funneled down to the people who have zero, so that they can at least get to the point where they can innovate, so the whole bloody thing doesn't wobble and fall."

Why doesn't he like the idea of a Universal Income?

"I think that the idea that the solution is a basic income is not a good idea, because I think the problem is deeper than that. I don't think the fundamental problem is that people don't have enough money. I think the fundamental problem is that human beings, in some sense, are beasts of burden. And if they're not provided with a place where they can accept personal and social responsibility in an honorable manner, they degenerate and die. That's the opiate crisis in West right now."

 

[gipper]

Income inequality is likely to get much worse in the West. This is due to improvements in computers, software, and robotics being employed replacing humans.

Dr Kaufman predicts in a couple decades we will be in big trouble, as so few people will have jobs available to them. Labor costs are declining as demand for labor declines. This just might result in even greater income inequality.

We are in the midst of a structural change that might be good or bad but with a corrupt government with too much power, it is likely to be bad.

Henry Kaufman - Wikipedia

 

[Mac1958]

Income inequality is likely to get much worse in the West. This is due to improvements in computers, software, and robotics being employed replacing humans.

Dr Kaufman predicts in a couple decades we will be in big trouble, as so few people will have jobs available to them. Labor costs are declining as demand for labor declines. This just might result in even greater income inequality.

We are in the midst of a structural change that might be good or bad but with a corrupt government with too much power, it is likely to be bad.

Henry Kaufman - Wikipedia

What concerns me is that we're not paying much attention to this issue. If our history is any indication, we'll end up waiting until it's a full crisis, and then make some poorly-thought out snap decision to deal with it.
.

 

[Tehon]

Jordan Peterson is a really interesting guy, and has some fascinating thoughts on the universal income issue that seems to be popping up more often nowadays.

My position has been that productivity, income and skill sets have all become so out-of-balance that we may not be able to re-balance them, so some kind of universal income may be necessary.

Peterson disagrees, and lays it out here. By the way, this is a very smart guy who is not paralyzed by partisan thought, and likes to instead look for areas of agreement on which to build. Crazy, huh?

JimBowie1958 , I think you'd find this interesting:

"So we can have an intelligent discussion between the Left and the Right, and the discussion would go something like this - You need innovation, you pay for innovation with inequality, but you need to bind inequality because if it is too intense then things destabilize. Okay, we can agree on that, we've got the parameters set. Now we have to start thinking very carefully through how to do the re-distribution issue, we don't know how to do that. So you might say well, we'd have a guaranteed income for people, which I think is a horrible solution, by the way, but it addresses the right problem, which is we're hyper-productive, the spoils go to those at the top, and some of those resources have to be funneled down to the people who have zero, so that they can at least get to the point where they can innovate, so the whole bloody thing doesn't wobble and fall."

Why doesn't he like the idea of a Universal Income?

"I think that the idea that the solution is a basic income is not a good idea, because I think the problem is deeper than that. I don't think the fundamental problem is that people don't have enough money. I think the fundamental problem is that human beings, in some sense, are beasts of burden. And if they're not provided with a place where they can accept personal and social responsibility in an honorable manner, they degenerate and die. That's the opiate crisis in West right now."

I agree with Jordan Peterson based on what you have presented here. Universal income is a bad idea.

I can't help but wonder who is going to pay our income taking into consideration the fight over welfare that we presently experience.

 

[TNHarley]

The only way that would work is if everyones economy becomes one.
Do people really think that is the best idea? Hek, we cant get decent people to run for positions in our country. Just imagine how taken advantage of, we would be, if one group of people ruled the entire WORLD?
Even if we could get an agreement with every country on earth(side tracking NWO), there would STILL be a massive loss of sovereignty..

 

[Mac1958]

Jordan Peterson is a really interesting guy, and has some fascinating thoughts on the universal income issue that seems to be popping up more often nowadays.

My position has been that productivity, income and skill sets have all become so out-of-balance that we may not be able to re-balance them, so some kind of universal income may be necessary.

Peterson disagrees, and lays it out here. By the way, this is a very smart guy who is not paralyzed by partisan thought, and likes to instead look for areas of agreement on which to build. Crazy, huh?

JimBowie1958 , I think you'd find this interesting:

"So we can have an intelligent discussion between the Left and the Right, and the discussion would go something like this - You need innovation, you pay for innovation with inequality, but you need to bind inequality because if it is too intense then things destabilize. Okay, we can agree on that, we've got the parameters set. Now we have to start thinking very carefully through how to do the re-distribution issue, we don't know how to do that. So you might say well, we'd have a guaranteed income for people, which I think is a horrible solution, by the way, but it addresses the right problem, which is we're hyper-productive, the spoils go to those at the top, and some of those resources have to be funneled down to the people who have zero, so that they can at least get to the point where they can innovate, so the whole bloody thing doesn't wobble and fall."

Why doesn't he like the idea of a Universal Income?

"I think that the idea that the solution is a basic income is not a good idea, because I think the problem is deeper than that. I don't think the fundamental problem is that people don't have enough money. I think the fundamental problem is that human beings, in some sense, are beasts of burden. And if they're not provided with a place where they can accept personal and social responsibility in an honorable manner, they degenerate and die. That's the opiate crisis in West right now."

I agree with Jordan Peterson based on what you have presented here. Universal income is a bad idea.

I can't help but wonder who is going to pay our income taking into consideration the fight over welfare that we presently experience.

This would be one hell of a partisan battle if it ever came up on a national basis, that's for sure.

I definitely agree with him that things can only get so far out of balance before the have-nots decide to rebel on a significant scale, though.
.

 

[gipper]

Income inequality is likely to get much worse in the West. This is due to improvements in computers, software, and robotics being employed replacing humans.

Dr Kaufman predicts in a couple decades we will be in big trouble, as so few people will have jobs available to them. Labor costs are declining as demand for labor declines. This just might result in even greater income inequality.

We are in the midst of a structural change that might be good or bad but with a corrupt government with too much power, it is likely to be bad.

Henry Kaufman - Wikipedia

What concerns me is that we're not paying much attention to this issue. If our history is any indication, we'll end up waiting until it's a full crisis, and then make some poorly-thought out snap decision to deal with it.
.

Income inequality is a huge issue. It was not discussed much the last few years, as it greatly accelerated under Big Ears, because the MSM refused to criticize BO and his failed policies. This has changed now with Trump. As it accelerates NOW, the MSM will be all over it.

 

[Correll]

Jordan Peterson is a really interesting guy, and has some fascinating thoughts on the universal income issue that seems to be popping up more often nowadays.

My position has been that productivity, income and skill sets have all become so out-of-balance that we may not be able to re-balance them, so some kind of universal income may be necessary.

Peterson disagrees, and lays it out here. By the way, this is a very smart guy who is not paralyzed by partisan thought, and likes to instead look for areas of agreement on which to build. Crazy, huh?

JimBowie1958 , I think you'd find this interesting:

"So we can have an intelligent discussion between the Left and the Right, and the discussion would go something like this - You need innovation, you pay for innovation with inequality, but you need to bind inequality because if it is too intense then things destabilize. Okay, we can agree on that, we've got the parameters set. Now we have to start thinking very carefully through how to do the re-distribution issue, we don't know how to do that. So you might say well, we'd have a guaranteed income for people, which I think is a horrible solution, by the way, but it addresses the right problem, which is we're hyper-productive, the spoils go to those at the top, and some of those resources have to be funneled down to the people who have zero, so that they can at least get to the point where they can innovate, so the whole bloody thing doesn't wobble and fall."

Why doesn't he like the idea of a Universal Income?

"I think that the idea that the solution is a basic income is not a good idea, because I think the problem is deeper than that. I don't think the fundamental problem is that people don't have enough money. I think the fundamental problem is that human beings, in some sense, are beasts of burden. And if they're not provided with a place where they can accept personal and social responsibility in an honorable manner, they degenerate and die. That's the opiate crisis in West right now."

His "beast of burden " point is very much a real issue with Universal Income.


Most people get a lot of their sense of self worth from their work, and thus taking responsibility for them selves and/or their families.


Take that away, and a lot of people would degenerate, in different ways.


I've seen and heard of a lot of people basically just falling apart once they were forced to retire.

 

[martybegan]

Jordan Peterson is a really interesting guy, and has some fascinating thoughts on the universal income issue that seems to be popping up more often nowadays.

My position has been that productivity, income and skill sets have all become so out-of-balance that we may not be able to re-balance them, so some kind of universal income may be necessary.

Peterson disagrees, and lays it out here. By the way, this is a very smart guy who is not paralyzed by partisan thought, and likes to instead look for areas of agreement on which to build. Crazy, huh?

JimBowie1958 , I think you'd find this interesting:

"So we can have an intelligent discussion between the Left and the Right, and the discussion would go something like this - You need innovation, you pay for innovation with inequality, but you need to bind inequality because if it is too intense then things destabilize. Okay, we can agree on that, we've got the parameters set. Now we have to start thinking very carefully through how to do the re-distribution issue, we don't know how to do that. So you might say well, we'd have a guaranteed income for people, which I think is a horrible solution, by the way, but it addresses the right problem, which is we're hyper-productive, the spoils go to those at the top, and some of those resources have to be funneled down to the people who have zero, so that they can at least get to the point where they can innovate, so the whole bloody thing doesn't wobble and fall."

Why doesn't he like the idea of a Universal Income?

"I think that the idea that the solution is a basic income is not a good idea, because I think the problem is deeper than that. I don't think the fundamental problem is that people don't have enough money. I think the fundamental problem is that human beings, in some sense, are beasts of burden. And if they're not provided with a place where they can accept personal and social responsibility in an honorable manner, they degenerate and die. That's the opiate crisis in West right now."

The opiate crisis is only the passive stage, the aggressive stage is when they start trying to change the system by force.

ISIS is a good example of disaffected people trying to change the system by force.

 

[Correll]

Jordan Peterson is a really interesting guy, and has some fascinating thoughts on the universal income issue that seems to be popping up more often nowadays.

My position has been that productivity, income and skill sets have all become so out-of-balance that we may not be able to re-balance them, so some kind of universal income may be necessary.

Peterson disagrees, and lays it out here. By the way, this is a very smart guy who is not paralyzed by partisan thought, and likes to instead look for areas of agreement on which to build. Crazy, huh?

JimBowie1958 , I think you'd find this interesting:

"So we can have an intelligent discussion between the Left and the Right, and the discussion would go something like this - You need innovation, you pay for innovation with inequality, but you need to bind inequality because if it is too intense then things destabilize. Okay, we can agree on that, we've got the parameters set. Now we have to start thinking very carefully through how to do the re-distribution issue, we don't know how to do that. So you might say well, we'd have a guaranteed income for people, which I think is a horrible solution, by the way, but it addresses the right problem, which is we're hyper-productive, the spoils go to those at the top, and some of those resources have to be funneled down to the people who have zero, so that they can at least get to the point where they can innovate, so the whole bloody thing doesn't wobble and fall."

Why doesn't he like the idea of a Universal Income?

"I think that the idea that the solution is a basic income is not a good idea, because I think the problem is deeper than that. I don't think the fundamental problem is that people don't have enough money. I think the fundamental problem is that human beings, in some sense, are beasts of burden. And if they're not provided with a place where they can accept personal and social responsibility in an honorable manner, they degenerate and die. That's the opiate crisis in West right now."

I agree with Jordan Peterson based on what you have presented here. Universal income is a bad idea.

I can't help but wonder who is going to pay our income taking into consideration the fight over welfare that we presently experience.

This would be one hell of a partisan battle if it ever came up on a national basis, that's for sure.

I definitely agree with him that things can only get so far out of balance before the have-nots decide to rebel on a significant scale, though.
.

Nah. The Dems will promise to "soak the rich" and then tax the shit out of the declining middle class, while taking care of their super rich supporters.


As the poor rise in numbers, they become dependent on what they can get from the government.


Thus, the need of the dems to even pretend to care, drops away.


See Chicago and Venezuela.


It's an excellent system of control.

 

[Tehon]

Marx has the solution if anyone cares to listen.

 

[martybegan]

Marx has the solution if anyone cares to listen.

Marx's solution has been tried and has failed repeatedly. The problem is the people running it are human, and marx's system puts too much power in too few people.

Marxism is to political reality as the Ideal Gas Law is to actual physical systems.

 

[Tehon]

Marx has the solution if anyone cares to listen.

Marx's solution has been tried and has failed repeatedly. The problem is the people running it are human, and marx's system puts too much power in too few people.

Marxism is to political reality as the Ideal Gas Law is to actual physical systems.

Marx knew the time would come when the capitalist method of production would become a hindrance to the evolution of society. You can either try to understand what he was saying or continue along a path to enslavement to the capitalist class, dependent on their charity in the form of a basic income.

 

[martybegan]

Marx has the solution if anyone cares to listen.

Marx's solution has been tried and has failed repeatedly. The problem is the people running it are human, and marx's system puts too much power in too few people.

Marxism is to political reality as the Ideal Gas Law is to actual physical systems.

Marx knew the time would come when the capitalist method of production would become a hindrance to the evolution of society. You can either try to understand what he was saying or continue along a path to enslavement to the capitalist class, dependent on their charity in the form of a basic income.

Marx never tried to implement his theories. Those that have so far have only increased human suffering.

All marxism does in practice is replace one ruling class with another, and the new ruling class has far more power than the old one.

 

[Mac1958]

Marx has the solution if anyone cares to listen.

Marx's solution has been tried and has failed repeatedly. The problem is the people running it are human, and marx's system puts too much power in too few people.

Marxism is to political reality as the Ideal Gas Law is to actual physical systems.

The fact remains this issue will probably only become more pronounced with time, and it would much smarter for us to address it ASAP than to wait until it's too late.

What does "too late" look like? Well, either (a) riots in the streets that make today's look like picnics, and assassinations of "the rich", or (b) electoral victories for those who make the most aggressive promises to "get" the rich and redistribute their wealth the most. Or both.

The only question is how much time we have before that happens.
.

 

[martybegan]

Marx has the solution if anyone cares to listen.

Marx's solution has been tried and has failed repeatedly. The problem is the people running it are human, and marx's system puts too much power in too few people.

Marxism is to political reality as the Ideal Gas Law is to actual physical systems.

The fact remains this issue will probably only become more pronounced with time, and it would much smarter for us to address it ASAP than to wait until it's too late.

What does "too late" look like? Well, either (a) riots in the streets that make today's look like picnics, and assassinations of "the rich", or (b) electoral victories for those who make the most aggressive promises to "get" the rich and redistribute their wealth the most. Or both.

The only question is how much time we have before that happens.
.

Too late is when the revolution begins, and people who think they have a new idea try to implement the same idea that hasn't worked again and again.

Revolutions are rarely led by the class that provides the mass and the force, they are led by defectors from the class that is in power.

It's amazing how right Orwell still is after all these years.

 

[gipper]

Marx has the solution if anyone cares to listen.

Mass murder is not a solution.

 

[boedicca]

What does it do to a human being to be treated like the useless pet of the government?

 

[gipper]

What does it do to a human being to be treated like the useless pet of the government?

It destroys their will to survive and thrive.

 

[boedicca]

What does it do to a human being to be treated like the useless pet of the government?

It destroys their will to survive and thrive.

BINGO. And that is why a universal income is a horrible idea.