Universal Basic Income: Biden's Best Bet?

Status
Not open for further replies.

danielpalos

Diamond Member
Joined
Jan 24, 2015
Messages
63,292
Reaction score
2,919
Points
1,855
Location
Alta California, federalist.
The negative effects of QE will be felt for a long time.
What negative effects? We must have a better understanding of economics since we don't have the rampant inflation pre-WWII Germany had.
1. The increased debt. We do have to pay back what we borrowed, or default, which is even worse.
2. Inflation. One of the biggest reasons you're complaining about the MW being too low is inflation, and QE makes it worse by increasing the money supply but not adding actual wealth value.
3. Post WWI Germany had rampant inflation because they were trying desperately to rebuild their destroyed country. That has nothing to do with our QE now so you can stop talking about it.
Increased debt and the Rich getting richer is right wing modus operandi and nothing new.

Nope; wages should have kept pace with inflation on an Institutional basis from the beginning, we know capitalism won't do it and has no basis to care.

Germany also employed a form of QE; we have a better understanding of economics and better mechanisms now.

The out-of-control inflation began somewhat mildly during World War I, as the German government printed unbacked currency and borrowed money to finance military expenditures.--https://mashable.com/2016/07/27/german-hyperinflation/#:~:text=The%20out%2Dof%2Dcontrol%20inflation,reparations%20on%20the%20vanquished%20Allies.
1. Democrats never cut anything. Even Bubba was forced to almost balance the budget by Republicans holding his feet to the fire. No, democrats are fine with increased debt.
2. Wages should reflect actual value, not arbitrary ideas of what should be paid. Anything else causes inflation to worsen, because the amount of money that used to buy an hour's labor now only buys part of an hour.
3. Germany has nothing to do with us other than to serve as a cautionary tale of what not to do.
Wages should have kept pace with inflation on an Institutional basis from the beginning, we know capitalism won't do it and has no basis to care. Hence, the socialism of Government and fiscal command economics by legislative Act.
Whether they should have or not is immaterial, you cannot double the MW overnight and expect there to be no consequences. That only happens in the left's dreams, and no one takes the left seriously about economics.
No, it is not immaterial; it is a failure of Capitalism and why the socialism of Government has to bail us out.
 

hadit

Gold Member
Joined
Jul 1, 2013
Messages
26,758
Reaction score
5,154
Points
280
UC is not unequal protection of the laws.
Yes, our current regime is repugnant to State at-will employment laws. The State can't make up arbitrary rules which conflict with existing law.
It's not doing that. At-will employment has no impact on UC. UC is applied equally to everyone, therefore there is no unequal protection under the law. You are simply and emphatically wrong, because you insist that having to meet qualifications to get UC is unequal protection while simultaneously insisting that meeting qualifications for getting welfare benefits is not. To be consistent (but still wrong) you would need to argue that I am not receiving equal protection because I can't get subsidized housing and food stamps. Your position is both inconsistent and wrong.

Let me ask you this question, has anyone anywhere agreed with you on this, or are you the only one who argues this point?
 

hadit

Gold Member
Joined
Jul 1, 2013
Messages
26,758
Reaction score
5,154
Points
280
The negative effects of QE will be felt for a long time.
What negative effects? We must have a better understanding of economics since we don't have the rampant inflation pre-WWII Germany had.
1. The increased debt. We do have to pay back what we borrowed, or default, which is even worse.
2. Inflation. One of the biggest reasons you're complaining about the MW being too low is inflation, and QE makes it worse by increasing the money supply but not adding actual wealth value.
3. Post WWI Germany had rampant inflation because they were trying desperately to rebuild their destroyed country. That has nothing to do with our QE now so you can stop talking about it.
Increased debt and the Rich getting richer is right wing modus operandi and nothing new.

Nope; wages should have kept pace with inflation on an Institutional basis from the beginning, we know capitalism won't do it and has no basis to care.

Germany also employed a form of QE; we have a better understanding of economics and better mechanisms now.

The out-of-control inflation began somewhat mildly during World War I, as the German government printed unbacked currency and borrowed money to finance military expenditures.--https://mashable.com/2016/07/27/german-hyperinflation/#:~:text=The%20out%2Dof%2Dcontrol%20inflation,reparations%20on%20the%20vanquished%20Allies.
1. Democrats never cut anything. Even Bubba was forced to almost balance the budget by Republicans holding his feet to the fire. No, democrats are fine with increased debt.
2. Wages should reflect actual value, not arbitrary ideas of what should be paid. Anything else causes inflation to worsen, because the amount of money that used to buy an hour's labor now only buys part of an hour.
3. Germany has nothing to do with us other than to serve as a cautionary tale of what not to do.
Wages should have kept pace with inflation on an Institutional basis from the beginning, we know capitalism won't do it and has no basis to care. Hence, the socialism of Government and fiscal command economics by legislative Act.
Whether they should have or not is immaterial, you cannot double the MW overnight and expect there to be no consequences. That only happens in the left's dreams, and no one takes the left seriously about economics.
No, it is not immaterial; it is a failure of Capitalism and why the socialism of Government has to bail us out.
You're ignoring the reality that you cannot double the MW overnight and expect no negative consequences.
 

Andylusion

Gold Member
Joined
Jan 23, 2014
Messages
20,473
Reaction score
5,774
Points
290
Location
Central Ohio
I hate to burst your bubble, but "every" nation has poverty. There's just not enough wealth to go around. You talk a basic $1,000 dollars per month for every person. That's $12,000 per year and doesn't pay for much.
If the average US family consists of 3.14 people, $3140 would pay for a great deal. In my case as a single retired adult, an additional $1000 a month would eliminate my dependency on my $244 a month SSI benefit and another $100/month Medicaid payment.

If you believe an "invisible hand" automatically distributes wealth and income based solely on each worker's and investor's marginal utility, you are drastically underestimating the influence of our politically constructed laws and institutions on society.
If the average US family consists of 3.14 people, $3140 would pay for a great deal.

It would still have to come out of the economy somewhere else, which would result in higher prices, or lower wagers.

Government does not have a magic source of money to give to everyone. If they tax it away from people, they are worse off than if the government had let them keep their money. If they print the money, the result is a devaluation of the money, which renders everyone poorer.

If you believe an "invisible hand" automatically distributes wealth and income based solely on each worker's and investor's marginal utility, you are drastically underestimating the influence of our politically constructed laws and institutions on society.

Our politically constructed laws and institutions have nothing to do with it.

There is no country in the world, where people who produce nothing, end up wealthy.

Wealth is not distributed at all. Wealth is a function of people spending less money than they earn, and investing it wisely.

If you give someone $10 Million dollars, and they blow it, they will end up in poverty.
If you give someone $10 Million dollars, and they invest it, they will end up wealthy.

This is why the wealthy are wealthy, and the poor are poor. Nothing you do will ever change that.
 

Andylusion

Gold Member
Joined
Jan 23, 2014
Messages
20,473
Reaction score
5,774
Points
290
Location
Central Ohio
Are you disabled? You are on Medicaid and SSI?
My income from SSA is just over $700/month, so Medicaid picks up the 20% of medical expenses that Medicare doesn't cover. There are two US economic groups that have the best medical care in the world, the very rich and the very poor.
That's not true at all. The people who live off government have the worst health care in the US. The people who pay for their own, have the best.

By pay for their own, I mean they get a bill and pay it. I just recently went to the clinic without any insurance whatsoever. I had first class treatment, that was polite, quick, high quality, and it cost me money. I paid the bill.

I guarantee you, that i got better care than you would have. Guarantee. I've been to Medicaid clinics, and they absolutely suck.
 

Andylusion

Gold Member
Joined
Jan 23, 2014
Messages
20,473
Reaction score
5,774
Points
290
Location
Central Ohio
So have you really thought about that? Because asking how you can have an economy not producing at full capacity, and have widespread unemployment at the same time.... isn't that hard to figure out.
If an economy suffers from spare capacity (machines and other forms of capital sitting idle) and unused labor, do you blame the profit motive or lack of central planning?

Five-year plans of China - Wikipedia
Neither. If there was no profit motive, there would be no capital sitting idle to begin with. Nothing exists without a profit motives. NOTHING.

As for central planning, we've seen how that works. Venezuela vowed to spending billions to develop their known oil reserves. Instead they can't even keep the electricity on.

Central planning never works. There is no known example of centrally planned economies anywhere in the world, that didn't fail.

There are literally billions, if not nearly infinite number of factors throughout an economy, that affect how the economy works.

The idea that people in government, would somehow know all of those factors.... or even most of those factors... or even a significant number of those factors.... is not just wrong, but laughable.

The answer to your question, is that government regulations themselves, are the cause of all our economic problems. Specifically unused labor resources, without a minimum wage, everyone would be able to find a job, because there would be more jobs, if employers could pay less for labor.

Again, as we've said thousands of times. Minimum wage destroys jobs. The value of the job is determined by how much the customer is willing to pay for the labor. If you made a minimum wage of $100 to mow a lawn, few if any people in the entire country would hire a lawn service, and all those people would be unemployed.
 

LuckyDuck

Gold Member
Joined
Jul 6, 2016
Messages
5,096
Reaction score
2,419
Points
290
I hate to burst your bubble, but "every" nation has poverty. There's just not enough wealth to go around. You talk a basic $1,000 dollars per month for every person. That's $12,000 per year and doesn't pay for much.
If the average US family consists of 3.14 people, $3140 would pay for a great deal. In my case as a single retired adult, an additional $1000 a month would eliminate my dependency on my $244 a month SSI benefit and another $100/month Medicaid payment.

If you believe an "invisible hand" automatically distributes wealth and income based solely on each worker's and investor's marginal utility, you are drastically underestimating the influence of our politically constructed laws and institutions on society.
The United States with its Free Market Capitalism and freedoms have risen more people out of poverty than ANY Marxist nation and it's the exact opposite for Marxist nations.
 
OP
georgephillip

georgephillip

Platinum Member
Joined
Dec 27, 2009
Messages
37,909
Reaction score
3,004
Points
1,125
Location
Los Angeles, California
So you can drive thousands of people into unemployment, and still have hundreds of jobs in engineering, or technical jobs, or nurses and doctors, or lawyers and accountants that all need filled.
Do those thousands of unemployed people have a human right to shelter and food, or do you prefer a Herbert Hoover's "trickle down" approach to capitalism's many inherent failures?
 
OP
georgephillip

georgephillip

Platinum Member
Joined
Dec 27, 2009
Messages
37,909
Reaction score
3,004
Points
1,125
Location
Los Angeles, California
The state doesn't create the market, moron. Markets existed long before the state. Your belief that the laws of economics are artificial creations is idiotic. When has the state ever succeeded in setting arbitrary prices for any good?

"Neoliberals often claim that reducing the size of the state will create a more efficient economy, as if the existence of the state is an impediment to the free market.

"This ideology has been used to justify the selling off of national assets, and the scaling back of public services.

"But this viewpoint ignores the fact that markets rely upon states for their very existence.

"Without states, there can be no free markets."


1. “States created markets. Markets require states. Neither could continue without the other.”
 

bripat9643

Diamond Member
Joined
Apr 1, 2011
Messages
134,833
Reaction score
26,731
Points
2,180
The state doesn't create the market, moron. Markets existed long before the state. Your belief that the laws of economics are artificial creations is idiotic. When has the state ever succeeded in setting arbitrary prices for any good?

"Neoliberals often claim that reducing the size of the state will create a more efficient economy, as if the existence of the state is an impediment to the free market.

"This ideology has been used to justify the selling off of national assets, and the scaling back of public services.

"But this viewpoint ignores the fact that markets rely upon states for their very existence.

"Without states, there can be no free markets."


1. “States created markets. Markets require states. Neither could continue without the other.”
Markets existed long before the state, moron. The state doesn't create anything. All it does is expropriate what the market has already created.
 
OP
georgephillip

georgephillip

Platinum Member
Joined
Dec 27, 2009
Messages
37,909
Reaction score
3,004
Points
1,125
Location
Los Angeles, California
The reason you don't leave is the fact that you don't believe in your own claimed principles.

You're a hypocrite.
I believe in extending democracy to the workplace.
Socialism is the only ideology I see capable of making that happen.
If you see another, feel free to continue revealing your ignorance on such matters.
 

22lcidw

Gold Member
Joined
Dec 25, 2018
Messages
16,818
Reaction score
5,336
Points
345
The negative effects of QE will be felt for a long time.
What negative effects? We must have a better understanding of economics since we don't have the rampant inflation pre-WWII Germany had.
1. The increased debt. We do have to pay back what we borrowed, or default, which is even worse.
2. Inflation. One of the biggest reasons you're complaining about the MW being too low is inflation, and QE makes it worse by increasing the money supply but not adding actual wealth value.
3. Post WWI Germany had rampant inflation because they were trying desperately to rebuild their destroyed country. That has nothing to do with our QE now so you can stop talking about it.
Increased debt and the Rich getting richer is right wing modus operandi and nothing new.

Nope; wages should have kept pace with inflation on an Institutional basis from the beginning, we know capitalism won't do it and has no basis to care.

Germany also employed a form of QE; we have a better understanding of economics and better mechanisms now.

The out-of-control inflation began somewhat mildly during World War I, as the German government printed unbacked currency and borrowed money to finance military expenditures.--https://mashable.com/2016/07/27/german-hyperinflation/#:~:text=The%20out%2Dof%2Dcontrol%20inflation,reparations%20on%20the%20vanquished%20Allies.
1. Democrats never cut anything. Even Bubba was forced to almost balance the budget by Republicans holding his feet to the fire. No, democrats are fine with increased debt.
2. Wages should reflect actual value, not arbitrary ideas of what should be paid. Anything else causes inflation to worsen, because the amount of money that used to buy an hour's labor now only buys part of an hour.
3. Germany has nothing to do with us other than to serve as a cautionary tale of what not to do.
Wages should have kept pace with inflation on an Institutional basis from the beginning, we know capitalism won't do it and has no basis to care. Hence, the socialism of Government and fiscal command economics by legislative Act.
Whether they should have or not is immaterial, you cannot double the MW overnight and expect there to be no consequences. That only happens in the left's dreams, and no one takes the left seriously about economics.
No, it is not immaterial; it is a failure of Capitalism and why the socialism of Government has to bail us out.
But you have no issue using those sweat shop capitalist Chinese products though. Trump tried to bring manufacturing back here at fair wages and you just didn't want that. Pontificate all you want. Get down in the mud and live like what you spout for your utopia.
 

bripat9643

Diamond Member
Joined
Apr 1, 2011
Messages
134,833
Reaction score
26,731
Points
2,180
So you can drive thousands of people into unemployment, and still have hundreds of jobs in engineering, or technical jobs, or nurses and doctors, or lawyers and accountants that all need filled.
Do those thousands of unemployed people have a human right to shelter and food, or do you prefer a Herbert Hoover's "trickle down" approach to capitalism's many inherent failures?
Hoover's Attack on Laissez-Faire | Murray N. Rothbard
We might have done nothing. That would have been utter ruin. Instead we met the situation with proposals to private business and to Congress of the most gigantic program of economic defense and counterattack ever evolved in the history of the Republic. We put it into action…. No government in Washington has hitherto considered that it held so broad a responsibility for leadership in such times…. For the first time in the history of depression, dividends, profits, and the cost of living, have been reduced before wages have suffered…. They were maintained until the cost of living had decreased and the profits had practically vanished. They are now the highest real wages in the world.
Creating new jobs and giving to the whole system a new breath of life; nothing has ever been devised in our history which has done more for … "the common run of men and women." Some of the reactionary economists urged that we should allow the liquidation to take its course until we had found bottom…. We determined that we would not follow the advice of the bitter-end liquidationists and see the whole body of debtors of the United States brought to bankruptcy and the savings of our people brought to destruction.
2
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Featured in Hoover's plan were increased inheritance taxes, public dams, and, significantly, government regulation of the stock market to eliminate "vicious speculation." Here was an early display of Hoover's hostility toward the stock market, a hostility that was to form one of the leitmotifs of his administration.4 Hoover, who to his credit has never pretended to be the stalwart of laissez-faire that most people now consider him, notes that some denounced his program as "radical" — as well they might have.

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

We developed cooperation between the federal, state, and municipal governments to increase public works. We persuaded employers to "divide" time among their employees so that as many as possible would have some incomes. We organized the industries to undertake renovation, repair, and, where possible, expand construction.10
 

bripat9643

Diamond Member
Joined
Apr 1, 2011
Messages
134,833
Reaction score
26,731
Points
2,180
The reason you don't leave is the fact that you don't believe in your own claimed principles.

You're a hypocrite.
I believe in extending democracy to the workplace.
Socialism is the only ideology I see capable of making that happen.
If you see another, feel free to continue revealing your ignorance on such matters.
How does that make you not a hypocrite? If you believe in workplace democracy, then move to Cuba or Venzuela
 

The Original Tree

Diamond Member
Joined
Dec 8, 2016
Messages
30,525
Reaction score
8,858
Points
1,340
Location
OHIO
Everyone will be a slave under UBI. That is the point of UBI. Once they get you in to the AntiChrist Cashless economy you will do, think, and act the way they want you to act, or they push a little button, and you are cut off from your cash and starve. And when The Lefty Messiah 666 AntiChrist shows up for a Global Government they are preparing for him right now, you will worship him, take his chip injected in to you, or not only will they cut you off from your cash, they will cut your head off.

Joe Biden is not the AntiChrist. He's too stupid and feeble for that. He's the AntiChrist' 666 New World Order Door Mat!


1606750776339.png
 

danielpalos

Diamond Member
Joined
Jan 24, 2015
Messages
63,292
Reaction score
2,919
Points
1,855
Location
Alta California, federalist.
The negative effects of QE will be felt for a long time.
What negative effects? We must have a better understanding of economics since we don't have the rampant inflation pre-WWII Germany had.
1. The increased debt. We do have to pay back what we borrowed, or default, which is even worse.
2. Inflation. One of the biggest reasons you're complaining about the MW being too low is inflation, and QE makes it worse by increasing the money supply but not adding actual wealth value.
3. Post WWI Germany had rampant inflation because they were trying desperately to rebuild their destroyed country. That has nothing to do with our QE now so you can stop talking about it.
Increased debt and the Rich getting richer is right wing modus operandi and nothing new.

Nope; wages should have kept pace with inflation on an Institutional basis from the beginning, we know capitalism won't do it and has no basis to care.

Germany also employed a form of QE; we have a better understanding of economics and better mechanisms now.

The out-of-control inflation began somewhat mildly during World War I, as the German government printed unbacked currency and borrowed money to finance military expenditures.--https://mashable.com/2016/07/27/german-hyperinflation/#:~:text=The%20out%2Dof%2Dcontrol%20inflation,reparations%20on%20the%20vanquished%20Allies.
1. Democrats never cut anything. Even Bubba was forced to almost balance the budget by Republicans holding his feet to the fire. No, democrats are fine with increased debt.
2. Wages should reflect actual value, not arbitrary ideas of what should be paid. Anything else causes inflation to worsen, because the amount of money that used to buy an hour's labor now only buys part of an hour.
3. Germany has nothing to do with us other than to serve as a cautionary tale of what not to do.
Wages should have kept pace with inflation on an Institutional basis from the beginning, we know capitalism won't do it and has no basis to care. Hence, the socialism of Government and fiscal command economics by legislative Act.
Whether they should have or not is immaterial, you cannot double the MW overnight and expect there to be no consequences. That only happens in the left's dreams, and no one takes the left seriously about economics.
No, it is not immaterial; it is a failure of Capitalism and why the socialism of Government has to bail us out.
You're ignoring the reality that you cannot double the MW overnight and expect no negative consequences.
Sounds like capitalists have a good excuse for asking for a tax break to help with that public policy. Solutions not just right wingers who doth protest too much.
 
OP
georgephillip

georgephillip

Platinum Member
Joined
Dec 27, 2009
Messages
37,909
Reaction score
3,004
Points
1,125
Location
Los Angeles, California
How would 2 billion cell phones get created without creating billionaires in the process?
By worker-self-directed-enterprises which would turn every billionaire into 1000 millionaires.

Take Bezos as a prime example.
He's worth around $180 billion.
How many Amazon millionaires would be created with 90% of Bezo's net worth?
 

The Original Tree

Diamond Member
Joined
Dec 8, 2016
Messages
30,525
Reaction score
8,858
Points
1,340
Location
OHIO
It's not doing that. At-will employment has no impact on UC.
Where does at-will employment law say you can't simply quit on an at-will basis in any at-will employment State? No other public policy can be repugnant to that concept through unequal protection of at-will employment laws.
Under UBI and under the Coming Great Reset, you will not be allowed to quit your job. You can only be fired from your job, and have your assets frozen if you do not take the vaccine and the Quantum Dot Matrix Tattoo and mark of "The Beast".

Universal Basic Income is the pathway to Universal Basic Slavery.

Feeble Joe Biden will not give you a Free Crap Card, he will give you a Draft Card so you can die for the glory of The New Normal, New World Order!


"A Dark Winter is coming! We must make lists of our enemies, round them up and put them in re-education camps!" Joe Biden

1606751881649.png
1606751894470.png

"A Dark Winter is coming! We must make lists of our enemies, round them up and put them in re-education camps!" Joe Biden
 

danielpalos

Diamond Member
Joined
Jan 24, 2015
Messages
63,292
Reaction score
2,919
Points
1,855
Location
Alta California, federalist.
I hate to burst your bubble, but "every" nation has poverty. There's just not enough wealth to go around. You talk a basic $1,000 dollars per month for every person. That's $12,000 per year and doesn't pay for much.
If the average US family consists of 3.14 people, $3140 would pay for a great deal. In my case as a single retired adult, an additional $1000 a month would eliminate my dependency on my $244 a month SSI benefit and another $100/month Medicaid payment.

If you believe an "invisible hand" automatically distributes wealth and income based solely on each worker's and investor's marginal utility, you are drastically underestimating the influence of our politically constructed laws and institutions on society.
If the average US family consists of 3.14 people, $3140 would pay for a great deal.

It would still have to come out of the economy somewhere else, which would result in higher prices, or lower wagers.

Government does not have a magic source of money to give to everyone. If they tax it away from people, they are worse off than if the government had let them keep their money. If they print the money, the result is a devaluation of the money, which renders everyone poorer.

If you believe an "invisible hand" automatically distributes wealth and income based solely on each worker's and investor's marginal utility, you are drastically underestimating the influence of our politically constructed laws and institutions on society.

Our politically constructed laws and institutions have nothing to do with it.

There is no country in the world, where people who produce nothing, end up wealthy.

Wealth is not distributed at all. Wealth is a function of people spending less money than they earn, and investing it wisely.

If you give someone $10 Million dollars, and they blow it, they will end up in poverty.
If you give someone $10 Million dollars, and they invest it, they will end up wealthy.

This is why the wealthy are wealthy, and the poor are poor. Nothing you do will ever change that.
The wealthy are wealthy because they have more practice using money and wealth than the Poor.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

New Topics

Most reactions - Past 7 days

Forum List

Top