Your elaborate model is basically just describing government taxation and could be applied to our modern welfare systems
- I think government must not be allowed to initiate violence against an individual, from my perspective welfare state is a violation of inalienable individual right not to be abused by the collective, so I am obviously against all forms of welfare, past, current and future.
UBI 'is bad' because it requires nationalization, complete abolition of individual rights so that the collective can provide these entitlements.
By shifting resources through taxation and UBI these people who would have no money to spend now have money to spend on basics like a refridgerator.
- looks to me you are not fully able to grasp simple things that I explained already. There is no (0) benefit to the productive people in this nonsensical idea that welfare produces demand that wasn't there before.
Who cares about demand coming from people that have nothing to trade for their demand? There isn't any benefit, there is only a loss to the productive from the unproductive, I explained it, I don't think you are able to fully comprehend that simple equation.
If you produce nothing and I produce food, taxing me based on my production or based on my property so that you can come back to me with my own products to 'trade' with me is not in any way useful to me, you are adding to the work I have to do and you are giving me *nothing* of any value, because you didn't produce anything.
I guess I have to reduce it from the 3 people model to 2 people model to maybe, maybe get through to you in there.
Again:
Person A makes food. Person B makes nothing.
A person B 'taxing' person A is simply theft and nothing more than that.
As to 'social order', again, with full automation I think order can be established, at the very least protection of the productive from the unproductive can be fully automated.
As a small business employer I can tell you that from my POV I follow my principles, I like to stick it to the system and outsource, I hate the collective, I hate the government, I hate the mob that put together this system over the last hundred years or so, I want my freedom and my freedom includes freedom not to be harassed by government in the way I hire and fire people, the way we negotiate our contracts and the way I deal with internal issues. I like being a free person, which is why I keep my exposure to Western labour to a minimum. I don't want to deal with any type of lawsuits, they could add to my costs. I see income, payroll and property taxes as theft, oppression and demeaning of my individualism by the collective, so from my POV it is important to stay clear from it. As to the large corporations, to them it's purely in the numbers, every dollar not spent is a dollar earned (same for me, but for them the scale is different).
Of-course there are those who can relate to this joke:
Powerball Interviewer: "Congratulations on winning the $140 million dollar Powerball lottery." Farmer: "Thank you." Interviewer: "Do you have any special plans for spending all of that money?" Farmer: "I'm just gonna keep farming until the money runs out."
- I understand that, but I think it is unnecessary to copy the old format and to do it *badly*, I think Bezos is missing the point. The point is to provide a good show with with these 3 guys in it, it is not to copy Top Gear, which is done, it's over.
It was embarrassing and also unnecessary. The killings of if the 'famous guests' are repetitive and unnecessary. The fat American driver shitting on every car he drove so far is unnecessary and embarrassing. The entire show seems unnecessary and embarrassing, but it is dies look pretty. So it is an unnecessary and embarrassing pretty thing, like Suicide Squad, unnecessary and embarrassing with some pretty (Robbie Margot) in it.
oh, and as to the 'part B' of your comment I will say that paranoia has nothing to do with it, I am simply against all forms of collective oppression of the individual. Your property rights are 'protected' until a pipe line needs to go through it or a cop decides that your property may have been used in some tangential connection to some drug dealing or until IRS comes to tax you and recalibrates your previous years or simply until the government decides that you shouldn't be able to own gold, just as it happened before. As to anarchy, I actually think the state of anarchy is preferable to what is happening at this point, where instead of government anchored in law by the Constitution you have a system that is situational. The difference between anarchy and that is only who you have to pay to be secured. At least with anarchy the money that you will spend on protection will simply be used for your protection and not to wage wars against some Arab nation that is sitting on some oil reserves in a desert, and USA government has done this and will do this again all while pretending to 'liberate' somebody or pretending to know something about some non-existing 'WMDs'.
A) You fail to acknowledge that global UBI might be implemented in a world that experiences the same problems together.
- you fail to realize that there is no benefit to the productive part of the population to feed the unproductive, also it is nonsense that the world is going to be doing this at large. I explained it a number of times, here is once again:
Example: 3 people. Person A produces bread, person B produces meat, person C produces nothing.
Trade between person A and person B is meaningful. However if it is taxed and the tax is part of what person A makes and part of what person B makes and then this is given to person C then there is no net advantage to person A or person B in this at all.
So person C can have bread and meat but he didn't make anything to give back to persons A and B. He can still trade with them of-course.
So person C can trade person B some bread that he got from person A.
C can trade some meat he got from B with person A.
But neither A nor B are better off in this exchange, this exchange subtracts from what they do, because person C also consumes some of the bread and meat, he has less that is left over to keep trading with A and B.
The point is that A and B are actually trading while C is not, he is adding to the amount of work that A and B are doing but he is not adding anything useful or net positive into this equation.
This is a simplified version but the logic is the same. People on welfare are or no use to the people who are productive and are capable of trading with other productive people.
Yes, UBI demands state control of all productivity, it literally cannot exist without the state directing how the productive population sells their products. The numbers I gave are an example, they don't have to be precise at all for the principle to stand: a product sold within the borders of a price controlled and for-UBI income taxed economy (and UBI also requires price control) is a loss to the manufacturer, the manufacturer is put at a gigantic disadvantage in terms of profit margins compared to manufacturers who are not working under the same conditions.
Of-course the manufacturers will completely abandon ship, the miners will have to run and maybe try and save their equipment from nationalization, the farmers will be the first who to be nationalised.
As to "your government doing a pretty allright job of enforcing ownership", I guess you are the right person then, the right person, living in the right place, you are of the right colour and of the right status if you have never heard of people's property being violated by the government that you are promoting. Theft, rape and murder is what your government promotes, whether you see it or not, whether you choose to understand it or not is not the question here.
How much did it cost before Watson? How much will it cost in 10 years? Those are more interesting questions and I think the cost will drop (of course while the government further destroys the value of money with inflation, printing, to wipe out its debts). In general technology makes the infinitely expensive feasable and the feasable becomes affordable. If not for the government destroying money, taxing and oppressing with laws, we could have affordable fully private health insurance and care bought pit of pocket and not tied to employment.
Nonsense, the only thing that breaks capitalism is any form of government that destroys private property rights, as in makes it illegal from point of view of the law to own and or operate private property. Even if 1 person out of the entire population can afford productive private property and nobody else has the resources but it is not made illegal to obtain, possess and operate property, it is still capitalism. Of course that scenario is nonsense. Labour can always compete with capital if the government does not make it prohibitively expensive to do that.
Get rid of government laws, rules, income and wealth taxes, government controlling money and manipulating interest rates, redistributing income and property, under those conditions you will have a working economy. Otherwise you will have war.
All taxation is theft, why is that not obvious? UBI is the modern communism, it does demand state control of all productive property. As to taxation being necessary for the government to run, why should a government run, why should it exist at all? Government is a system if oppression, nothing else, it steals, destroys private property, rapes and murders, that is its function.
companies have not decided to shutter their business or relocate en masse
- they have not?:). They have not, you say? So that 500,000,000,000 dollar a year trade deficit that USA has been running for over 2 decades is due to influx of capital investment and of new business and it is not due to businesses leaving or shutting down? Interesting alternative reality you have constructed yourself there.
So many of you, collectivists, say things like 'it will break capitalism', I have to guess that this nonsense comes from such a fundamental lack of proper education and understanding that it cannot be fixed with any number of comments.
Capitalism is private ownership and operation of property. Relative price levels going up or down cannot break it anymore than snow or sand can. Your comment is pure drivel, yet it is +5, .
Apple keyboard? I have seen it, I bough it to have one of my devs work on the iOS stuff. However I find apple stuff fully incompatible with my way of working with computers, I got stuck trying to use the fucking thing a couple of times so I don't touch it.
If apple decided that their keyboards will no longer have buttons at all but would only have a couple of sliders and a touchpad, would the web have to adopt that as a standard for navigation? I think apple users should have their own web, where they can be secured against the evil world with its standard computer keyboards and keys.
Khm, I want NSA destruction. I also want FBI destruction. I also want IRS, FHA, HUD, FDA, EPA, FDIC destruction. I want to see the Fed shutdown, I want to see all government programs shut down. I want to see full demolition of income and wealth transfer. I want all welfare to stop to corporations and to individuals. SS, Medicare, Medicaid, dep'ts of education, agriculture, small business, dept of interior, all of it - I want all of it to be shut down.
...I want people who know... I consider it essential that when I make a reference... I also consider it essential...
- sure deal, Hitler, we must all do what pleases you the way that pleases you, thus we must set up the collectivist structures that would impose your will onto all.
How about this: go fuck yourself, you mother fucking piece of shit oppressive pig dog dictator. I think that nobody in this world should oppressed for one picoseconds to satisfy any form of collectivist dictatorship you have so much desire for.
Government needs to die and with it all systems that government has its fat dirty fingers in, including all forms of loan guarantees, any type of l income and wealth taxes, money control, interest rate manipulation. AFAIC all business must be completely private. Education, health insurance and care, infrastructure, communications, transportation, energy, pharma, food, and at this point courts, police, military even, everything needs to be fully privatised, nothing should nlbe in the hands of any collective via government oppression. Everything must be private, all lands, all water, all infrastructure, everything. Collectivism must be fully and thoroughly eradicated, I am 100% with Thiele on all of it.
You are only responsible to yourself (and possibly your family), you don't have to work if you don't want to, but you cannot demand that others work for you and pay for you, feed you, cloth you, shelter you, treat your diseases, educate you, etc.
So it is a choice, you can choose to work or not to work, you can choose to eat or not to eat. How is that a 'country' situation? It's a UNIVERSE situation.
Again, if Uber is the *difference* between Joe Somebody earning money or not earning money, then attacking the *ONLY* company that Joe is apparently capable of finding a work at is ridiculous and economically suicidal.
I see, so now Uber, who you basically just said yourself is *saving people from starvation and death* is a husband who beats his wife?
So what you are saying is that the wife that is being abused is actually unable to survive without the husband, is that what you are implying? So is it the economy that makes the wife unable to survive or is that only something that exists in her (your) head?
You are now comparing people, who are driving for Uber to wives that take a beating but cannot leave their husbands because *they believe* they cannot survive in the world without the husband?
You see, I wouldn't make claims similar to yours, so I wouldn't put myself in such a precarious position in a conversation.
I think that people driving for Uber are not on the brink of starvation and hunger death, they have other choices, *you* implied that they are starving and cannot survive without Uber.
I think that they are making a conscious decision to drive for Uber because it works for them better, maybe it gives them extra income, maybe it gives them the flexibility, maybe they like not going to an office and like being treated as independent adults who are perfectly capable of making their own life choices.
You, on the other hand, are implying all sorts of things about these people that I think cannot stand to any type of scrutiny. These are not starving people, they are driving cars, they wear clothes and they have mobile phones and they are able to afford all of that and still they can eat something (or they wouldn't be driving).
You should stop attacking companies simply because you think they are not providing the type of work conditions that you expect them to provide, instead maybe (if you think you can do it better) you should run a competitor to Uber or to WalMart or to McDonalds or to Apple or to whatever and see if you can do better and if you can provide those jobs under the conditions that you are promoting here.
So what you are saying, rsilvergun, is that Uber is *saving people from starvation and death*. Seems to me that attacking a company that provides that option to people without any other options is not a good economic move.
This has nothing to do with 'deserving', the point is that nobody at all is forcing anybody to drive for Uber.
I run a company of my own, at times I made not simply less than minimum wage would be, but in a number of cases I was paying people who work for me out of pocket, as in I was losing money, not making it. *Nobody* forced me to do this, it's a private personal decision.
the issue that the federal government is meddling with stupid shit that is not within its charter.
- correct.
guarantee that I can find a job
- also not within their authority, because to *guarantee* a job to person A would mean to guarantee that other people have to subsidise that job. It's direct transfer from one person to another. OTOH government should step aside and *not diminish your chances* of finding a job by destroying the economy, that would be nice.
Slashdot Mirror
Your elaborate model is basically just describing government taxation and could be applied to our modern welfare systems
- I think government must not be allowed to initiate violence against an individual, from my perspective welfare state is a violation of inalienable individual right not to be abused by the collective, so I am obviously against all forms of welfare, past, current and future.
UBI 'is bad' because it requires nationalization, complete abolition of individual rights so that the collective can provide these entitlements.
By shifting resources through taxation and UBI these people who would have no money to spend now have money to spend on basics like a refridgerator.
- looks to me you are not fully able to grasp simple things that I explained already. There is no (0) benefit to the productive people in this nonsensical idea that welfare produces demand that wasn't there before.
Who cares about demand coming from people that have nothing to trade for their demand? There isn't any benefit, there is only a loss to the productive from the unproductive, I explained it, I don't think you are able to fully comprehend that simple equation.
If you produce nothing and I produce food, taxing me based on my production or based on my property so that you can come back to me with my own products to 'trade' with me is not in any way useful to me, you are adding to the work I have to do and you are giving me *nothing* of any value, because you didn't produce anything.
I guess I have to reduce it from the 3 people model to 2 people model to maybe, maybe get through to you in there.
Again:
Person A makes food.
Person B makes nothing.
A person B 'taxing' person A is simply theft and nothing more than that.
As to 'social order', again, with full automation I think order can be established, at the very least protection of the productive from the unproductive can be fully automated.
As a small business employer I can tell you that from my POV I follow my principles, I like to stick it to the system and outsource, I hate the collective, I hate the government, I hate the mob that put together this system over the last hundred years or so, I want my freedom and my freedom includes freedom not to be harassed by government in the way I hire and fire people, the way we negotiate our contracts and the way I deal with internal issues. I like being a free person, which is why I keep my exposure to Western labour to a minimum. I don't want to deal with any type of lawsuits, they could add to my costs. I see income, payroll and property taxes as theft, oppression and demeaning of my individualism by the collective, so from my POV it is important to stay clear from it. As to the large corporations, to them it's purely in the numbers, every dollar not spent is a dollar earned (same for me, but for them the scale is different).
If you are a consulting/services company, you should be required to use only US employees in the US
- based on what? Those are the jobs of the employer, not of anybody else.
not worry that "failure=lose house"
- that's my life and there is no greater motivator than 'failure=lose everything'.
:) it's a good option as well.
Of-course there are those who can relate to this joke:
Powerball Interviewer: "Congratulations on winning the $140 million dollar Powerball lottery." Farmer: "Thank you." Interviewer: "Do you have any special plans for spending all of that money?" Farmer: "I'm just gonna keep farming until the money runs out."
... to avoid a suit by the BBC
- I understand that, but I think it is unnecessary to copy the old format and to do it *badly*, I think Bezos is missing the point. The point is to provide a good show with with these 3 guys in it, it is not to copy Top Gear, which is done, it's over.
It was embarrassing and also unnecessary. The killings of if the 'famous guests' are repetitive and unnecessary. The fat American driver shitting on every car he drove so far is unnecessary and embarrassing. The entire show seems unnecessary and embarrassing, but it is dies look pretty. So it is an unnecessary and embarrassing pretty thing, like Suicide Squad, unnecessary and embarrassing with some pretty (Robbie Margot) in it.
oh, and as to the 'part B' of your comment I will say that paranoia has nothing to do with it, I am simply against all forms of collective oppression of the individual. Your property rights are 'protected' until a pipe line needs to go through it or a cop decides that your property may have been used in some tangential connection to some drug dealing or until IRS comes to tax you and recalibrates your previous years or simply until the government decides that you shouldn't be able to own gold, just as it happened before. As to anarchy, I actually think the state of anarchy is preferable to what is happening at this point, where instead of government anchored in law by the Constitution you have a system that is situational. The difference between anarchy and that is only who you have to pay to be secured. At least with anarchy the money that you will spend on protection will simply be used for your protection and not to wage wars against some Arab nation that is sitting on some oil reserves in a desert, and USA government has done this and will do this again all while pretending to 'liberate' somebody or pretending to know something about some non-existing 'WMDs'.
A) You fail to acknowledge that global UBI might be implemented in a world that experiences the same problems together.
- you fail to realize that there is no benefit to the productive part of the population to feed the unproductive, also it is nonsense that the world is going to be doing this at large. I explained it a number of times, here is once again:
Example: 3 people. Person A produces bread, person B produces meat, person C produces nothing.
Trade between person A and person B is meaningful. However if it is taxed and the tax is part of what person A makes and part of what person B makes and then this is given to person C then there is no net advantage to person A or person B in this at all.
So person C can have bread and meat but he didn't make anything to give back to persons A and B. He can still trade with them of-course.
So person C can trade person B some bread that he got from person A.
C can trade some meat he got from B with person A.
But neither A nor B are better off in this exchange, this exchange subtracts from what they do, because person C also consumes some of the bread and meat, he has less that is left over to keep trading with A and B.
The point is that A and B are actually trading while C is not, he is adding to the amount of work that A and B are doing but he is not adding anything useful or net positive into this equation.
This is a simplified version but the logic is the same. People on welfare are or no use to the people who are productive and are capable of trading with other productive people.
Yes, UBI demands state control of all productivity, it literally cannot exist without the state directing how the productive population sells their products. The numbers I gave are an example, they don't have to be precise at all for the principle to stand: a product sold within the borders of a price controlled and for-UBI income taxed economy (and UBI also requires price control) is a loss to the manufacturer, the manufacturer is put at a gigantic disadvantage in terms of profit margins compared to manufacturers who are not working under the same conditions.
Of-course the manufacturers will completely abandon ship, the miners will have to run and maybe try and save their equipment from nationalization, the farmers will be the first who to be nationalised.
As to "your government doing a pretty allright job of enforcing ownership", I guess you are the right person then, the right person, living in the right place, you are of the right colour and of the right status if you have never heard of people's property being violated by the government that you are promoting. Theft, rape and murder is what your government promotes, whether you see it or not, whether you choose to understand it or not is not the question here.
How much did it cost before Watson? How much will it cost in 10 years? Those are more interesting questions and I think the cost will drop (of course while the government further destroys the value of money with inflation, printing, to wipe out its debts). In general technology makes the infinitely expensive feasable and the feasable becomes affordable. If not for the government destroying money, taxing and oppressing with laws, we could have affordable fully private health insurance and care bought pit of pocket and not tied to employment.
Nonsense, the only thing that breaks capitalism is any form of government that destroys private property rights, as in makes it illegal from point of view of the law to own and or operate private property. Even if 1 person out of the entire population can afford productive private property and nobody else has the resources but it is not made illegal to obtain, possess and operate property, it is still capitalism. Of course that scenario is nonsense. Labour can always compete with capital if the government does not make it prohibitively expensive to do that.
Get rid of government laws, rules, income and wealth taxes, government controlling money and manipulating interest rates, redistributing income and property, under those conditions you will have a working economy. Otherwise you will have war.
All taxation is theft, why is that not obvious? UBI is the modern communism, it does demand state control of all productive property. As to taxation being necessary for the government to run, why should a government run, why should it exist at all? Government is a system if oppression, nothing else, it steals, destroys private property, rapes and murders, that is its function.
companies have not decided to shutter their business or relocate en masse
- they have not? :). They have not, you say? So that 500,000,000,000 dollar a year trade deficit that USA has been running for over 2 decades is due to influx of capital investment and of new business and it is not due to businesses leaving or shutting down? Interesting alternative reality you have constructed yourself there.
So many of you, collectivists, say things like 'it will break capitalism', I have to guess that this nonsense comes from such a fundamental lack of proper education and understanding that it cannot be fixed with any number of comments.
Capitalism is private ownership and operation of property. Relative price levels going up or down cannot break it anymore than snow or sand can. Your comment is pure drivel, yet it is +5, .
No, one of the devs working on my shitty logistics system that nobody has never heard of.
Apple keyboard? I have seen it, I bough it to have one of my devs work on the iOS stuff. However I find apple stuff fully incompatible with my way of working with computers, I got stuck trying to use the fucking thing a couple of times so I don't touch it.
If apple decided that their keyboards will no longer have buttons at all but would only have a couple of sliders and a touchpad, would the web have to adopt that as a standard for navigation? I think apple users should have their own web, where they can be secured against the evil world with its standard computer keyboards and keys.
Khm, I want NSA destruction. I also want FBI destruction. I also want IRS, FHA, HUD, FDA, EPA, FDIC destruction. I want to see the Fed shutdown, I want to see all government programs shut down. I want to see full demolition of income and wealth transfer. I want all welfare to stop to corporations and to individuals. SS, Medicare, Medicaid, dep'ts of education, agriculture, small business, dept of interior, all of it - I want all of it to be shut down.
...I want people who know ... I consider it essential that when I make a reference ... I also consider it essential ...
- sure deal, Hitler, we must all do what pleases you the way that pleases you, thus we must set up the collectivist structures that would impose your will onto all.
How about this: go fuck yourself, you mother fucking piece of shit oppressive pig dog dictator. I think that nobody in this world should oppressed for one picoseconds to satisfy any form of collectivist dictatorship you have so much desire for.
Government needs to die and with it all systems that government has its fat dirty fingers in, including all forms of loan guarantees, any type of l income and wealth taxes, money control, interest rate manipulation. AFAIC all business must be completely private. Education, health insurance and care, infrastructure, communications, transportation, energy, pharma, food, and at this point courts, police, military even, everything needs to be fully privatised, nothing should nlbe in the hands of any collective via government oppression. Everything must be private, all lands, all water, all infrastructure, everything. Collectivism must be fully and thoroughly eradicated, I am 100% with Thiele on all of it.
You are only responsible to yourself (and possibly your family), you don't have to work if you don't want to, but you cannot demand that others work for you and pay for you, feed you, cloth you, shelter you, treat your diseases, educate you, etc.
So it is a choice, you can choose to work or not to work, you can choose to eat or not to eat. How is that a 'country' situation? It's a UNIVERSE situation.
Again, if Uber is the *difference* between Joe Somebody earning money or not earning money, then attacking the *ONLY* company that Joe is apparently capable of finding a work at is ridiculous and economically suicidal.
I see, so now Uber, who you basically just said yourself is *saving people from starvation and death* is a husband who beats his wife?
So what you are saying is that the wife that is being abused is actually unable to survive without the husband, is that what you are implying? So is it the economy that makes the wife unable to survive or is that only something that exists in her (your) head?
You are now comparing people, who are driving for Uber to wives that take a beating but cannot leave their husbands because *they believe* they cannot survive in the world without the husband?
You see, I wouldn't make claims similar to yours, so I wouldn't put myself in such a precarious position in a conversation.
I think that people driving for Uber are not on the brink of starvation and hunger death, they have other choices, *you* implied that they are starving and cannot survive without Uber.
I think that they are making a conscious decision to drive for Uber because it works for them better, maybe it gives them extra income, maybe it gives them the flexibility, maybe they like not going to an office and like being treated as independent adults who are perfectly capable of making their own life choices.
You, on the other hand, are implying all sorts of things about these people that I think cannot stand to any type of scrutiny. These are not starving people, they are driving cars, they wear clothes and they have mobile phones and they are able to afford all of that and still they can eat something (or they wouldn't be driving).
You should stop attacking companies simply because you think they are not providing the type of work conditions that you expect them to provide, instead maybe (if you think you can do it better) you should run a competitor to Uber or to WalMart or to McDonalds or to Apple or to whatever and see if you can do better and if you can provide those jobs under the conditions that you are promoting here.
So what you are saying, rsilvergun, is that Uber is *saving people from starvation and death*. Seems to me that attacking a company that provides that option to people without any other options is not a good economic move.
This has nothing to do with 'deserving', the point is that nobody at all is forcing anybody to drive for Uber.
I run a company of my own, at times I made not simply less than minimum wage would be, but in a number of cases I was paying people who work for me out of pocket, as in I was losing money, not making it. *Nobody* forced me to do this, it's a private personal decision.
the issue that the federal government is meddling with stupid shit that is not within its charter.
- correct.
guarantee that I can find a job
- also not within their authority, because to *guarantee* a job to person A would mean to guarantee that other people have to subsidise that job. It's direct transfer from one person to another. OTOH government should step aside and *not diminish your chances* of finding a job by destroying the economy, that would be nice.