CDZ Another conversation about Universal Income

[danielpalos]

The left wing of the left wing is advocating solving simple poverty on an at-will basis in our at-will employment States.

Capitalism does not Care about Socialism's "work ethic from the Age of Iron". Only socialism cares. Capitalism only cares about capitalism.

Equal protection of the law for unemployment compensation purposes, is a, "flanking maneuver" of the far left.

Wow! Three successive remarks, and not one of them directly addresses the intrinsic merits/demerits of a UBI.

lol. Are you on the right wing?

Recourse to an income on an at-will basis, solves for the UBI dilemma.

 

[Bonzi]

Like Monopoly, it's a bit luck, but, ultimately, the winner is the most persuasive, persistent and creative with their money management

 

[danielpalos]

The left wing of the left wing is advocating solving simple poverty on an at-will basis in our at-will employment States.

Capitalism does not Care about Socialism's "work ethic from the Age of Iron". Only socialism cares. Capitalism only cares about capitalism.

Equal protection of the law for unemployment compensation purposes, is a, "flanking maneuver" of the far left.

Wow! Three successive remarks, and not one of them directly addresses the intrinsic merits/demerits of a UBI.

this is why I have so many people on ignore.

I don't ignore anyone; I prefer to "argue them into submission".

 

[danielpalos]

Like Monopoly, it's a bit luck, but, ultimately, the winner is the most persuasive, persistent and creative with their money management

How does, means tested welfare, help with capital management?

 

[Bonzi]

Like Monopoly, it's a bit luck, but, ultimately, the winner is the most persuasive, persistent and creative with their money management

How does, means tested welfare, help with capital management?

It's gives them a temporary base to build upon. Temporary being the key.

 

[danielpalos]

Like Monopoly, it's a bit luck, but, ultimately, the winner is the most persuasive, persistent and creative with their money management

How does, means tested welfare, help with capital management?

It's gives them a temporary base to build upon. Temporary being the key.

Not with capital management. That "stagnates as a market based skill".

 

[usmbguest5318]

FWIW, I'm not convinced of the need for a UBI, but I realized it's a potential solution to a very real problem; thus I'm not flat-out opposed to trying it.

It is a subsidy that will benefit business more than the consumers.

Well, okay....maybe so, maybe not. I don't know. I don't think the preponderance of the benefit is a determining factor for me. Maybe it should be or will eventually be, but thus far I haven't considered the matter from a normative context of the sort implied by your remark. What I've considered is what impacts it will have on me and whether I am willing to endure those impacts. I've also thought about and sought empirical measurements/analysis of the macroeconomic implications of the UBI.

The left wing of the left wing is advocating solving simple poverty on an at-will basis in our at-will employment States.

I don't see the point of that remark in what presumably is supposed to be a substantive discussion about the merits/demerits of UBI and implementing it. What anyone, including "the left wing of the left wing," advocates or doesn't is irrelevant unless the advocate is a credible expert on the matter. Quite simply, the ethicality, sagacity and efficacy of a proposal are existential.

Truth is a demure lady, much too ladylike to knock you on your head and drag you to her cave. She is there, but people must want her, and seek her out.
-- William F. Buckley, Jr.​

It would be recourse to an income on an at-will basis in our at-will employment States. It solves the UBI dilemma, in a market friendly manner using existing infrastructure.

WTF? If by "it" you mean "solving poverty on an at-will basis," your clarifying sentences can be rewritten as:

"Solving poverty on an at-will basis would be recourse to an income on an at-will basis in our at-will employment States. It solves the UBI dilemma, in a market friendly manner using existing infrastructure."​

That makes no more sense to me than does the remark for which I requested clarification (below), which presumably the remarks above are your attempt at providing such.

The left wing of the left wing is advocating solving simple poverty on an at-will basis in our at-will employment States.

I can't compel you to respond with fully formed coherent ideas; however, if you're going to persist in "tweeting" at me on a matter as complex as UBI and implementing it, I can stop responding to you. I'm fine with discussing UBI, but I'm not going to try to inject substance into what amounts to a "tweet." You can and may indeed laugh at what I've written, but it's you who has been asked to expound cogently on what you've written so that we may have a substantive conversation about it and who has yet not done so.

 

[Bonzi]

Like Monopoly, it's a bit luck, but, ultimately, the winner is the most persuasive, persistent and creative with their money management

How does, means tested welfare, help with capital management?

It's gives them a temporary base to build upon. Temporary being the key.

Not with capital management. That "stagnates as a market based skill".

True, but that's more permanent.... I don't agree with that at all

 

[danielpalos]

FWIW, I'm not convinced of the need for a UBI, but I realized it's a potential solution to a very real problem; thus I'm not flat-out opposed to trying it.

It is a subsidy that will benefit business more than the consumers.

Well, okay....maybe so, maybe not. I don't know. I don't think the preponderance of the benefit is a determining factor for me. Maybe it should be or will eventually be, but thus far I haven't considered the matter from a normative context of the sort implied by your remark. What I've considered is what impacts it will have on me and whether I am willing to endure those impacts. I've also thought about and sought empirical measurements/analysis of the macroeconomic implications of the UBI.

The left wing of the left wing is advocating solving simple poverty on an at-will basis in our at-will employment States.

I don't see the point of that remark in what presumably is supposed to be a substantive discussion about the merits/demerits of UBI and implementing it. What anyone, including "the left wing of the left wing," advocates or doesn't is irrelevant unless the advocate is a credible expert on the matter. Quite simply, the ethicality, sagacity and efficacy of a proposal are existential.

Truth is a demure lady, much too ladylike to knock you on your head and drag you to her cave. She is there, but people must want her, and seek her out.
-- William F. Buckley, Jr.​

It would be recourse to an income on an at-will basis in our at-will employment States. It solves the UBI dilemma, in a market friendly manner using existing infrastructure.

WTF? If by "it" you mean "solving poverty on an at-will basis," your clarifying sentences can be rewritten as:

"Solving poverty on an at-will basis would be recourse to an income on an at-will basis in our at-will employment States. It solves the UBI dilemma, in a market friendly manner using existing infrastructure."​

That makes no more sense to me than does the remark for which I requested clarification (below), which presumably the remarks above are your attempt at providing such.

The left wing of the left wing is advocating solving simple poverty on an at-will basis in our at-will employment States.

What part of my assertions, are You not bright enough to understand?

 

[danielpalos]

Like Monopoly, it's a bit luck, but, ultimately, the winner is the most persuasive, persistent and creative with their money management

How does, means tested welfare, help with capital management?

It's gives them a temporary base to build upon. Temporary being the key.

Not with capital management. That "stagnates as a market based skill".

True, but that's more permanent.... I don't agree with that at all

Means testing means Persons on welfare cannot practice capital management and prefer cash transactions.

 

[usmbguest5318]

FWIW, I'm not convinced of the need for a UBI, but I realized it's a potential solution to a very real problem; thus I'm not flat-out opposed to trying it.

It is a subsidy that will benefit business more than the consumers.

Well, okay....maybe so, maybe not. I don't know. I don't think the preponderance of the benefit is a determining factor for me. Maybe it should be or will eventually be, but thus far I haven't considered the matter from a normative context of the sort implied by your remark. What I've considered is what impacts it will have on me and whether I am willing to endure those impacts. I've also thought about and sought empirical measurements/analysis of the macroeconomic implications of the UBI.

The left wing of the left wing is advocating solving simple poverty on an at-will basis in our at-will employment States.

I don't see the point of that remark in what presumably is supposed to be a substantive discussion about the merits/demerits of UBI and implementing it. What anyone, including "the left wing of the left wing," advocates or doesn't is irrelevant unless the advocate is a credible expert on the matter. Quite simply, the ethicality, sagacity and efficacy of a proposal are existential.

Truth is a demure lady, much too ladylike to knock you on your head and drag you to her cave. She is there, but people must want her, and seek her out.
-- William F. Buckley, Jr.​

It would be recourse to an income on an at-will basis in our at-will employment States. It solves the UBI dilemma, in a market friendly manner using existing infrastructure.

WTF? If by "it" you mean "solving poverty on an at-will basis," your clarifying sentences can be rewritten as:

"Solving poverty on an at-will basis would be recourse to an income on an at-will basis in our at-will employment States. It solves the UBI dilemma, in a market friendly manner using existing infrastructure."​

That makes no more sense to me than does the remark for which I requested clarification (below), which presumably the remarks above are your attempt at providing such.

The left wing of the left wing is advocating solving simple poverty on an at-will basis in our at-will employment States.

What part of my assertions, are You not bright enough to understand?

You don't think I'd respond in substance to that loaded question, do you?

 

[danielpalos]

FWIW, I'm not convinced of the need for a UBI, but I realized it's a potential solution to a very real problem; thus I'm not flat-out opposed to trying it.

It is a subsidy that will benefit business more than the consumers.

Well, okay....maybe so, maybe not. I don't know. I don't think the preponderance of the benefit is a determining factor for me. Maybe it should be or will eventually be, but thus far I haven't considered the matter from a normative context of the sort implied by your remark. What I've considered is what impacts it will have on me and whether I am willing to endure those impacts. I've also thought about and sought empirical measurements/analysis of the macroeconomic implications of the UBI.

The left wing of the left wing is advocating solving simple poverty on an at-will basis in our at-will employment States.

I don't see the point of that remark in what presumably is supposed to be a substantive discussion about the merits/demerits of UBI and implementing it. What anyone, including "the left wing of the left wing," advocates or doesn't is irrelevant unless the advocate is a credible expert on the matter. Quite simply, the ethicality, sagacity and efficacy of a proposal are existential.

Truth is a demure lady, much too ladylike to knock you on your head and drag you to her cave. She is there, but people must want her, and seek her out.
-- William F. Buckley, Jr.​

It would be recourse to an income on an at-will basis in our at-will employment States. It solves the UBI dilemma, in a market friendly manner using existing infrastructure.

WTF? If by "it" you mean "solving poverty on an at-will basis," your clarifying sentences can be rewritten as:

"Solving poverty on an at-will basis would be recourse to an income on an at-will basis in our at-will employment States. It solves the UBI dilemma, in a market friendly manner using existing infrastructure."​

That makes no more sense to me than does the remark for which I requested clarification (below), which presumably the remarks above are your attempt at providing such.

The left wing of the left wing is advocating solving simple poverty on an at-will basis in our at-will employment States.

What part of my assertions, are You not bright enough to understand?

You don't think I'd respond in substance to that loaded question, do you?

Nothing but diversion?

What part of my assertion are You not bright enough to understand, in Any at-will employment State?

 

[boedicca]

One can find purpose and joy in their labor ENTIRELY INDEPENDENT OF EARNING AN INCOME.

Many priests, nuns, and volunteer free laborers know this.

Why dont we?

Socialism requires social morals for free; that is why, Only the Religious can make, "communism work".

There is no way to make Communism work. It has failed everywhere it has been tried.

Never say never.
Communism did not work in specific societies at specific points along the evolutionary process forming their productive relations.

I'll say it again quite emphatically: Communism has always ended up in failure wherever it has been tried, and it always will. The Utopia it aims for is contrary to the fundamentals of human nature. It actually augments the worst of humanity in that it enables extreme concentration of power.

The breakdown of the capitalist mode of production is a historical inevitability. This thread is evidence that people are awake to the reality. Marx explained all of this that we are witnessing, and he did so scientifically by way of dialectic method. Communism is not a Utopia, it is the next step in the evolution of the social relations of production. The advanced development of our technology is going force us to make a decision, enslavement to the class that owns the technology used to produce the necessary requirements of life or freedom through a new social relationship of production.

Nonsense. Communism crushes individualism, creativity, and initiative. Compare economic output of the Soviet Union to that of the U.S. in the 80s.

And ultimately, the true test is the effect on human life. The Famines orchestrated by Staling and Mao resulted in 10s of millions of deaths due to starvation BY DESIGN.

The only intellectually and morally valid way to evaluate a human system of living is what happens to the quality and quantity of human life...at the individual level. Totalitarian systems don't value the individual, hence he is expendable to the serve the state. It's not a coincidence that the body counts of totalitarian regimes are enormous.

DEATH BY GOVERNMENT: GENOCIDE AND MASS MURDER

 

[danielpalos]

Socialism requires social morals for free; that is why, Only the Religious can make, "communism work".

There is no way to make Communism work. It has failed everywhere it has been tried.

Never say never.
Communism did not work in specific societies at specific points along the evolutionary process forming their productive relations.

I'll say it again quite emphatically: Communism has always ended up in failure wherever it has been tried, and it always will. The Utopia it aims for is contrary to the fundamentals of human nature. It actually augments the worst of humanity in that it enables extreme concentration of power.

The breakdown of the capitalist mode of production is a historical inevitability. This thread is evidence that people are awake to the reality. Marx explained all of this that we are witnessing, and he did so scientifically by way of dialectic method. Communism is not a Utopia, it is the next step in the evolution of the social relations of production. The advanced development of our technology is going force us to make a decision, enslavement to the class that owns the technology used to produce the necessary requirements of life or freedom through a new social relationship of production.

Nonsense. Communism crushes individualism, creativity, and initiative. Compare economic output of the Soviet Union to that of the U.S. in the 80s.

And ultimately, the true test is the effect on human life. The Famines orchestrated by Staling and Mao resulted in 10s of millions of deaths due to starvation BY DESIGN.

The only intellectually and morally valid way to evaluate a human system of living is what happens to the quality and quantity of human life...at the individual level. Totalitarian systems don't value the individual, hence he is expendable to the serve the state. It's not a coincidence that the body counts of totalitarian regimes are enormous.

DEATH BY GOVERNMENT: GENOCIDE AND MASS MURDER

Any form of Socialism requires social morals for free; the Religious practice communism, everyday.

 

[boedicca]

There is no way to make Communism work. It has failed everywhere it has been tried.

Never say never.
Communism did not work in specific societies at specific points along the evolutionary process forming their productive relations.

I'll say it again quite emphatically: Communism has always ended up in failure wherever it has been tried, and it always will. The Utopia it aims for is contrary to the fundamentals of human nature. It actually augments the worst of humanity in that it enables extreme concentration of power.

The breakdown of the capitalist mode of production is a historical inevitability. This thread is evidence that people are awake to the reality. Marx explained all of this that we are witnessing, and he did so scientifically by way of dialectic method. Communism is not a Utopia, it is the next step in the evolution of the social relations of production. The advanced development of our technology is going force us to make a decision, enslavement to the class that owns the technology used to produce the necessary requirements of life or freedom through a new social relationship of production.

Nonsense. Communism crushes individualism, creativity, and initiative. Compare economic output of the Soviet Union to that of the U.S. in the 80s.

And ultimately, the true test is the effect on human life. The Famines orchestrated by Staling and Mao resulted in 10s of millions of deaths due to starvation BY DESIGN.

The only intellectually and morally valid way to evaluate a human system of living is what happens to the quality and quantity of human life...at the individual level. Totalitarian systems don't value the individual, hence he is expendable to the serve the state. It's not a coincidence that the body counts of totalitarian regimes are enormous.

DEATH BY GOVERNMENT: GENOCIDE AND MASS MURDER

Any form of Socialism requires social morals for free; the Religious practice communism, everyday.

Oh, that is just complete and utter nonsense.

The religious do not practice communism. Try learning the difference between totalitarian state systems and voluntary religious practices.

 

[danielpalos]

Never say never.
Communism did not work in specific societies at specific points along the evolutionary process forming their productive relations.

I'll say it again quite emphatically: Communism has always ended up in failure wherever it has been tried, and it always will. The Utopia it aims for is contrary to the fundamentals of human nature. It actually augments the worst of humanity in that it enables extreme concentration of power.

The breakdown of the capitalist mode of production is a historical inevitability. This thread is evidence that people are awake to the reality. Marx explained all of this that we are witnessing, and he did so scientifically by way of dialectic method. Communism is not a Utopia, it is the next step in the evolution of the social relations of production. The advanced development of our technology is going force us to make a decision, enslavement to the class that owns the technology used to produce the necessary requirements of life or freedom through a new social relationship of production.

Nonsense. Communism crushes individualism, creativity, and initiative. Compare economic output of the Soviet Union to that of the U.S. in the 80s.

And ultimately, the true test is the effect on human life. The Famines orchestrated by Staling and Mao resulted in 10s of millions of deaths due to starvation BY DESIGN.

The only intellectually and morally valid way to evaluate a human system of living is what happens to the quality and quantity of human life...at the individual level. Totalitarian systems don't value the individual, hence he is expendable to the serve the state. It's not a coincidence that the body counts of totalitarian regimes are enormous.

DEATH BY GOVERNMENT: GENOCIDE AND MASS MURDER

Any form of Socialism requires social morals for free; the Religious practice communism, everyday.

Oh, that is just complete and utter nonsense.

The religious do not practice communism. Try learning the difference between totalitarian state systems and voluntary religious practices.

Yes, some Religious practice Communism. They can "make it work" due to their "solidarity" regarding social morals for free, with their Own, Constitution for their Body Politic.

 

[Tehon]

Socialism requires social morals for free; that is why, Only the Religious can make, "communism work".

There is no way to make Communism work. It has failed everywhere it has been tried.

Never say never.
Communism did not work in specific societies at specific points along the evolutionary process forming their productive relations.

I'll say it again quite emphatically: Communism has always ended up in failure wherever it has been tried, and it always will. The Utopia it aims for is contrary to the fundamentals of human nature. It actually augments the worst of humanity in that it enables extreme concentration of power.

The breakdown of the capitalist mode of production is a historical inevitability. This thread is evidence that people are awake to the reality. Marx explained all of this that we are witnessing, and he did so scientifically by way of dialectic method. Communism is not a Utopia, it is the next step in the evolution of the social relations of production. The advanced development of our technology is going force us to make a decision, enslavement to the class that owns the technology used to produce the necessary requirements of life or freedom through a new social relationship of production.

Nonsense. Communism crushes individualism, creativity, and initiative. Compare economic output of the Soviet Union to that of the U.S. in the 80s.

And ultimately, the true test is the effect on human life. The Famines orchestrated by Staling and Mao resulted in 10s of millions of deaths due to starvation BY DESIGN.

The only intellectually and morally valid way to evaluate a human system of living is what happens to the quality and quantity of human life...at the individual level. Totalitarian systems don't value the individual, hence he is expendable to the serve the state. It's not a coincidence that the body counts of totalitarian regimes are enormous.

DEATH BY GOVERNMENT: GENOCIDE AND MASS MURDER

The communist societies of the Soviet Union and China bore no resemblance to Marx's historical dialectic materialist theory. A theory that is designed to improve the quality and quantity of human life.

The famines were the result of the underdeveloped industrial capacity of those societies, not Marx. Marx's theory takes into account the need for capitalism to first fully develop the means of production to such a degree that society will have no problem feeding the members of society.

Communism isn't something that needs to be forced on society by overbearing government. It arises naturally out of the conditions of present society. Like the condition that is being discussed in this thread.

"Communism is for us not a state of affairs which is to be established, an ideal to which reality [will] have to adjust itself. We call communism the real movement which abolishes the present state of things. The conditions of this movement result from the premises now in existence." Karl Marx

 

[boedicca]

There is no way to make Communism work. It has failed everywhere it has been tried.

Never say never.
Communism did not work in specific societies at specific points along the evolutionary process forming their productive relations.

I'll say it again quite emphatically: Communism has always ended up in failure wherever it has been tried, and it always will. The Utopia it aims for is contrary to the fundamentals of human nature. It actually augments the worst of humanity in that it enables extreme concentration of power.

The breakdown of the capitalist mode of production is a historical inevitability. This thread is evidence that people are awake to the reality. Marx explained all of this that we are witnessing, and he did so scientifically by way of dialectic method. Communism is not a Utopia, it is the next step in the evolution of the social relations of production. The advanced development of our technology is going force us to make a decision, enslavement to the class that owns the technology used to produce the necessary requirements of life or freedom through a new social relationship of production.

Nonsense. Communism crushes individualism, creativity, and initiative. Compare economic output of the Soviet Union to that of the U.S. in the 80s.

And ultimately, the true test is the effect on human life. The Famines orchestrated by Staling and Mao resulted in 10s of millions of deaths due to starvation BY DESIGN.

The only intellectually and morally valid way to evaluate a human system of living is what happens to the quality and quantity of human life...at the individual level. Totalitarian systems don't value the individual, hence he is expendable to the serve the state. It's not a coincidence that the body counts of totalitarian regimes are enormous.

DEATH BY GOVERNMENT: GENOCIDE AND MASS MURDER

The communist societies of the Soviet Union and China bore no resemblance to Marx's historical dialectic materialist theory. A theory that is designed to improve the quality and quantity of human life.

The famines were the result of the underdeveloped industrial capacity of those societies, not Marx. Marx's theory takes into account the need for capitalism to first fully develop the means of production to such a degree that society will have no problem feeding the members of society.

Communism isn't something that needs to be forced on society by overbearing government. It arises naturally out of the conditions of present society. Like the condition that is being discussed in this thread.

"Communism is for us not a state of affairs which is to be established, an ideal to which reality [will] have to adjust itself. We call communism the real movement which abolishes the present state of things. The conditions of this movement result from the premises now in existence." Karl Marx

Sorry, but I'm not buying it. Stalinism and Maoism enacted Communism exactly as it was designed to work: subjugating the individual to the collective. The Big Flaw, which really is a Feature, not a Bug, is that, given human frailties, those who seek the centralized power of a totalitarian regime are not very nice people. They like the bloodshed.

 

[danielpalos]

Never say never.
Communism did not work in specific societies at specific points along the evolutionary process forming their productive relations.

I'll say it again quite emphatically: Communism has always ended up in failure wherever it has been tried, and it always will. The Utopia it aims for is contrary to the fundamentals of human nature. It actually augments the worst of humanity in that it enables extreme concentration of power.

The breakdown of the capitalist mode of production is a historical inevitability. This thread is evidence that people are awake to the reality. Marx explained all of this that we are witnessing, and he did so scientifically by way of dialectic method. Communism is not a Utopia, it is the next step in the evolution of the social relations of production. The advanced development of our technology is going force us to make a decision, enslavement to the class that owns the technology used to produce the necessary requirements of life or freedom through a new social relationship of production.

Nonsense. Communism crushes individualism, creativity, and initiative. Compare economic output of the Soviet Union to that of the U.S. in the 80s.

And ultimately, the true test is the effect on human life. The Famines orchestrated by Staling and Mao resulted in 10s of millions of deaths due to starvation BY DESIGN.

The only intellectually and morally valid way to evaluate a human system of living is what happens to the quality and quantity of human life...at the individual level. Totalitarian systems don't value the individual, hence he is expendable to the serve the state. It's not a coincidence that the body counts of totalitarian regimes are enormous.

DEATH BY GOVERNMENT: GENOCIDE AND MASS MURDER

The communist societies of the Soviet Union and China bore no resemblance to Marx's historical dialectic materialist theory. A theory that is designed to improve the quality and quantity of human life.

The famines were the result of the underdeveloped industrial capacity of those societies, not Marx. Marx's theory takes into account the need for capitalism to first fully develop the means of production to such a degree that society will have no problem feeding the members of society.

Communism isn't something that needs to be forced on society by overbearing government. It arises naturally out of the conditions of present society. Like the condition that is being discussed in this thread.

"Communism is for us not a state of affairs which is to be established, an ideal to which reality [will] have to adjust itself. We call communism the real movement which abolishes the present state of things. The conditions of this movement result from the premises now in existence." Karl Marx

Sorry, but I'm not buying it. Stalinism and Maoism enacted Communism exactly as it was designed to work: subjugating the individual to the collective. The Big Flaw, which really is a Feature, not a Bug, is that, given human frailties, those who seek the centralized power of a totalitarian regime are not very nice people. They like the bloodshed.

Did Jesus the Christ and His Crew, waste their time and effort to try to "get you into the Collective of Heaven"?

 

[Votto]

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

I would vote for a robot to replace our current human representatives in government.

Hell, I would vote for this chair on sitting on over Nancy Pelosi.