I guess you didn't actually read anything I wrote, I explained it in the comment. Why should I repeat myself if you are not paying attention?
The State will have to confiscate the means of production otherwise the producers will not trade in the country where they own the means of production. That's because trading is a *2 way street*, both sides have to *produce* something of value to the other side.
With a large portion of the population not producing anything but being subsidized from the income of the producers the producer will lose twice (2 times) in that transaction.
The first time the producer will lose when the government will confiscate his productive output in form of various taxes to pass that money to the UBI recipients. The second time the producer will lose when the UBI recipient will come to the producer to give the producer *HIS OWN MONEY* in exchange for the goods that the producer produced.
That's not a trade at all, that's not 'buying'. Thus the producer will not trade in the country where he is taxed for the benefit of the UBI recipients. The producer will trade in countries where people will produce something *IN EXCHANGE* for what the producer offers.
This means that the producer will not be taxed in USA, just like Apple cannot be taxed on the income made outside of the country. BUT for the UBI to exist somebody has to be taxed and it has to be *net producer* who must be taxed, the net UBI recipient cannot be taxed for this to work (unless you figured out a way to repeal the natural laws of conservation of energy, mass and momentum and thus invented a perpetual motion machine).
I don't know how else to explain it to you better than this, which is pretty much the same thing I said in the comment you responded to. You might be trolling with that question of-course, in which case I tip my hat.
Well, you are a dumb ass, which is why you think you 'hear' things. Somalia is not an anarchist country any more than the States are. Somalia doesn't have a single federal government, yet there are plenty of local governments. It is not an anarchist country, it is a county that fought for its independence from the Royalty and from the Communists and is now free from those people.
I don't have problems with people exercising ability to prevent governments from oppressing them, to me that is what TPP is. Ability to fight against a government in court and force it to accept freedom of the individual and company.
Now, I don't believe governments should be able to meddle in any business or money at all, but a collectivist may have a different point of view.
Don't make a mistake thinking that USA will not default on its debts, it is defaulting on its debts today, which is why it keeps printing more and more money to buy the Treasuries nobody wants, which is why the USA economy is destroyed, all this money printing (money expansion = inflation) is what drove the businesses away together with the rules, laws, unions, taxes, etc.
USA will default on its debts one way or another. One way is to do it honestly, allowing a restructuring to be organized, renegotiating the payment agreements, not paying 100% of the money borrowed, paying *some* money back.
Seems to me that the USA will not choose that route, instead it will print its way out of this debt destroying the US dollar and bonds in the process, which is not what you want if you want a functioning economy.
Trump knows one thing: how not to pay on his borrowed loans. That is actually the person that is needed in the government. He is not going to run a business there but he can lead the country through the restructuring of debts that it needs.
Americans have to work more hours and take fewer vacation days because they are poorer at this point, given that USA is running 500,000,000,000 a year trade deficit and has been running that for 2 decades now, Americans cannot afford anything, they are completely stuck in debt and their government in concert with the Federal reserve are destroying the value of their money, value of theirs savings every days. Government spending and money printing, pushing interest rates down to keep borrowing more by doing things like 'operation twist' (the Fed buying long term bonds at negative real interest rates because nobody else would), all of this is expanding the money supply making USD less valuable all the time, thus making Americans less productive every day.
The only way out of this insanity is to restructure the debts, an honest default on the USD denominated debt, stopping all government spending (yes, this means all wars, all SS payments, all Medicare payments, everything). You have to clear away all of your debts, allow the bond holders to lose money so that the interest rates would reset to normal levels (only real market without government intervention can set real interest rates). Get the government out of your money because otherwise you will never have vacations or retirement savings or anything.
Thiel would be more qualified then the rest of the SCOTUS combined because all he has to do is to rule every law that goes through the court unconstitutional because they all are.
USA productive output is 500,000,000,000 a year lower than its consumption and has been for two decades (that's the yearly trade deficit).
Luxembourg balances its trade. Luxembourg has very high savings and almost no inflation. Don't compare an economic failure like the USA to the mostly successful economy of Luxembourg.
As to what would happen if USA debts were restructured: government would lose its ability to live of off debt, USA would start living within its actual means, savings would restart (interest rate would normalize). At 5-15% interest rate savings would accumulate while consumption borrowing would mostly cease to exist, all of which very healthy for the economy. In a few years, a decade or two maybe, USA would again become a productive country. That is why libertarians are needed in scotus of course - to stop collectivism from destroying freedoms and the economy again.
If you don't see why that is ask yourself a question: if a productive person surrounded by a bunch of unproductive people is forced to pay gigantic income tax to support these unproductive people, the income tax that would 'put the money into the pockets' of those people he is forced to support, then where is the gain for that productive person?
Why would that productive person trade with people who are 'trading' with him with the money extracted from him?
Again, then why bother 'trading' with people who are not actually trading anything they produced for your goods and services? Instead the productive person would find a way to not trade with Americans and instead would make all of his income elsewhere, outside of American borders.
So then the Americans would not see that money and they would go after that productive person with the government armed to the teeth. Clearly the only way to force that person to 'trade' with the unproductive Americans at that point would be by force. The USA Government would have to force that person to trade with Americans in effect nationalizing the capital/assets/means of production.
We are talking full nationalization, from each according to his abilities to each according to his needs.
As a person who wants to be free of collectivism and government oppression in general I cannot support any of this.
By the way, while I realize that Trump cannot be pinned on any of the issues and does not really deliver on promises much, I still would vote for him over Hillary ( or any of the Clintons, who I see as war criminals and basically murderers for all of the military conflicts they started or have been voting/working for).
Trump, on the other hand, mentioned he might nominate Thiel for SCOTUS and might actually go through an honest default on the USA debt. This is totally enough to get my vote (if I was voting).
Of-course there is also Gary Johnson in the race, so I would vote for him instead.
I see, for you the government is your brain and you are a cell. Judging from the quality and type of the comment you just left there, you must be one of those cells found around the anus area. I can totally understand why you would think you need an external brain of that type.
For the actual free people (as opposed to body cells, ants, bees and such) government is more of an armed shit monster.
The government oppression and theft was what led to fascism in the first place. The government oppression and theft was what led to cold war and to every war.
sustained the cold war which avoided you from being oppressed by communism,
- I am a former Soviet, lets just get that out of the way, born in the USSR. Were people in my former country oppressed by Communism? I think they were.
Of-course that makes perfect sense. It will mean though that UBI will end very quickly as well, why would you vote to tax yourself? I wouldn't vote to tax myself ever. This means though that inflation would completely wipe out the cheques and UBI will be impossible to live on.
It's definitely gotten more pronounced in the last few years, going from grumbling about government to out and out hatred of government.
- good, that's a solution, not a problem. The problem is the government (oppression of the individual freedom by the collective), the solution is removal of the problem.
I see that you brought up Fascism, let me interject this thought: UBI is Communism and from point of view of economics Fascism is actually a more stable system than Communism. Both are abhorrent obviously (obvious to people who prefer individual freedom to any form of oppression), yet Fascism will survive longer than Communism because Fascism allows private property to be possessed and controlled at least partially. A Fascist will not interfere (but will help) a corporation to become and stay a monopoly as long as the Fascist gets control and a large cut from the proceeds.
A Communist will require that each must work according to his or her ability and each must consume according to his or her need, all this while actually nationalizing and controlling the means of production.
You may argue that UBI is not Communism because the means of production do not have to be nationalized, I beg to differ. UBI will *require* that the means of production are nationalized because if the means of production are not nationalized the private property owner (say a miner or a factory or other type of a productive company owner) can produce in the country with UBI but *not sell in that country to avoid income taxation*.
Here is the point: if let's say there are 1000 people, 10 of them own the largest means of production (mines, factories), the 990 would have to be supported by the 10.
However the income of the 10 has to come from other production, from people who produce themselves in order to consume what the 10 produce. If the 990 do not produce anything, the 10 gain nothing at all, indeed they are losing money (money as an expression of the productive output) on every single transaction. At that point there is no trade between the 10 and the 990, there is no exchange of goods.
Simplify: if there are 2 people, person A makes food (hunts?) and person B does nothing that person A needs, taking 'money' (food) from person A and giving it to person B creates consumption of-course, but it in no way benefits person B because there is no trade.
In a country of 318 million (USA) there are maybe a few tens of thousands of people who own real means of production. If they are forced to pay the millions without jobs a stipend in form of a UBI or anything else so that those millions could then "buy" (what a funny word in this context - buy) the productive output of those few tens of thousands then these tens of thousands have 0 use for the unproductive millions.
Why would they participate? Their means of production will have to be nationalized, they will be working under complete oppression, where they will have no choice but to provide the millions with their productive output under the barrels of millions of guns.
You can call that whatever, but it is nationalization and oppression, it is Communism - from those who can, to those who want/need.
This system will implode like any other communist system, you can only have hunger and devastation under that scenario, we have proven it conclusively back in the USSR.
I am completely against for using collectivism and government oppression to steal from anybody to subsidise anybody. I abhor any form of collectivism, socialism, fascism, communism or government in general. Nobody has a right to steal from anybody person and for that to be OK because it's a 'democracy'.
Unions, collectivism, government with its money and market manipulation have destroyed the savings in the USA, pushed the productive people out of the country and now they are calling for milking the remaining productive people so that whoever is still in the union can jump right from their 'ensured' job position to an ensured retirement.
This guys is no fool, he understands where the bread is buttered, he knows that his amazing skills are not what is required in the real productive world. What he does not understand is that the real productive world that still keeps feeding the USA to the tune of over 500,000,000,000 USD a / year (trade deficit) cannot actually be taxed to give him a cushy retirement.
Good luck with that idea though, you'll need all of these fantastic ideas when the dollar and the bond collapse. What would a USD denominated cheque buy you at that time? I am sure *you will get your cheques*, I just don't think you'll be buying much in terms of products for them because you are not producing anything of value and the only thing you have produced with your collectivism is destruction.
It has everything to do with it. There wouldn't be any of this money flowing through the system without 0% interest rates and various QE programs. People wouldn't waste their own *savings* on these so called 'business models' of giving away free stuff for years without the Fed providing the money and the government providing a guarantee.
So were these sites ever profitable? I assume that Kim Dot Com was running Mega profitably, was this one ever cash flow positive?
On a side note how about all the other cash flow negative internet 'businesses' (hobbies AFAIC)? I fully expect the Fed to announce a new round of QE sometime but not too long after the elections, that will help them I suppose. Other than that those types of enterprises should also be readying to shut down.
Slashdot Mirror
I decided to put the points I made into a single journal entry, which I will refer to in all future UBI discussions. Enjoy.
I guess you didn't actually read anything I wrote, I explained it in the comment. Why should I repeat myself if you are not paying attention?
The State will have to confiscate the means of production otherwise the producers will not trade in the country where they own the means of production. That's because trading is a *2 way street*, both sides have to *produce* something of value to the other side.
With a large portion of the population not producing anything but being subsidized from the income of the producers the producer will lose twice (2 times) in that transaction.
The first time the producer will lose when the government will confiscate his productive output in form of various taxes to pass that money to the UBI recipients. The second time the producer will lose when the UBI recipient will come to the producer to give the producer *HIS OWN MONEY* in exchange for the goods that the producer produced.
That's not a trade at all, that's not 'buying'. Thus the producer will not trade in the country where he is taxed for the benefit of the UBI recipients. The producer will trade in countries where people will produce something *IN EXCHANGE* for what the producer offers.
This means that the producer will not be taxed in USA, just like Apple cannot be taxed on the income made outside of the country. BUT for the UBI to exist somebody has to be taxed and it has to be *net producer* who must be taxed, the net UBI recipient cannot be taxed for this to work (unless you figured out a way to repeal the natural laws of conservation of energy, mass and momentum and thus invented a perpetual motion machine).
I don't know how else to explain it to you better than this, which is pretty much the same thing I said in the comment you responded to. You might be trolling with that question of-course, in which case I tip my hat.
Ta ta.
Well, you are a dumb ass, which is why you think you 'hear' things. Somalia is not an anarchist country any more than the States are. Somalia doesn't have a single federal government, yet there are plenty of local governments. It is not an anarchist country, it is a county that fought for its independence from the Royalty and from the Communists and is now free from those people.
I don't have problems with people exercising ability to prevent governments from oppressing them, to me that is what TPP is. Ability to fight against a government in court and force it to accept freedom of the individual and company.
Now, I don't believe governments should be able to meddle in any business or money at all, but a collectivist may have a different point of view.
Don't make a mistake thinking that USA will not default on its debts, it is defaulting on its debts today, which is why it keeps printing more and more money to buy the Treasuries nobody wants, which is why the USA economy is destroyed, all this money printing (money expansion = inflation) is what drove the businesses away together with the rules, laws, unions, taxes, etc.
USA will default on its debts one way or another. One way is to do it honestly, allowing a restructuring to be organized, renegotiating the payment agreements, not paying 100% of the money borrowed, paying *some* money back.
Seems to me that the USA will not choose that route, instead it will print its way out of this debt destroying the US dollar and bonds in the process, which is not what you want if you want a functioning economy.
Trump knows one thing: how not to pay on his borrowed loans. That is actually the person that is needed in the government. He is not going to run a business there but he can lead the country through the restructuring of debts that it needs.
Americans have to work more hours and take fewer vacation days because they are poorer at this point, given that USA is running 500,000,000,000 a year trade deficit and has been running that for 2 decades now, Americans cannot afford anything, they are completely stuck in debt and their government in concert with the Federal reserve are destroying the value of their money, value of theirs savings every days. Government spending and money printing, pushing interest rates down to keep borrowing more by doing things like 'operation twist' (the Fed buying long term bonds at negative real interest rates because nobody else would), all of this is expanding the money supply making USD less valuable all the time, thus making Americans less productive every day.
The only way out of this insanity is to restructure the debts, an honest default on the USD denominated debt, stopping all government spending (yes, this means all wars, all SS payments, all Medicare payments, everything). You have to clear away all of your debts, allow the bond holders to lose money so that the interest rates would reset to normal levels (only real market without government intervention can set real interest rates). Get the government out of your money because otherwise you will never have vacations or retirement savings or anything.
Thiel would be more qualified then the rest of the SCOTUS combined because all he has to do is to rule every law that goes through the court unconstitutional because they all are.
USA productive output is 500,000,000,000 a year lower than its consumption and has been for two decades (that's the yearly trade deficit).
Luxembourg balances its trade. Luxembourg has very high savings and almost no inflation. Don't compare an economic failure like the USA to the mostly successful economy of Luxembourg.
As to what would happen if USA debts were restructured: government would lose its ability to live of off debt, USA would start living within its actual means, savings would restart (interest rate would normalize). At 5-15% interest rate savings would accumulate while consumption borrowing would mostly cease to exist, all of which very healthy for the economy. In a few years, a decade or two maybe, USA would again become a productive country. That is why libertarians are needed in scotus of course - to stop collectivism from destroying freedoms and the economy again.
Here are the right people, people showing their disapproval of a Trump supporter.
Here is how I see UBI, of it is a modern version communism because it will require nationalization of resources and means of production.
If you don't see why that is ask yourself a question: if a productive person surrounded by a bunch of unproductive people is forced to pay gigantic income tax to support these unproductive people, the income tax that would 'put the money into the pockets' of those people he is forced to support, then where is the gain for that productive person?
Why would that productive person trade with people who are 'trading' with him with the money extracted from him?
Again, then why bother 'trading' with people who are not actually trading anything they produced for your goods and services? Instead the productive person would find a way to not trade with Americans and instead would make all of his income elsewhere, outside of American borders.
So then the Americans would not see that money and they would go after that productive person with the government armed to the teeth. Clearly the only way to force that person to 'trade' with the unproductive Americans at that point would be by force. The USA Government would have to force that person to trade with Americans in effect nationalizing the capital/assets/means of production.
We are talking full nationalization, from each according to his abilities to each according to his needs.
As a person who wants to be free of collectivism and government oppression in general I cannot support any of this.
I do encourage watching this video, it's worth it.
Cheers.
100%.
By the way, while I realize that Trump cannot be pinned on any of the issues and does not really deliver on promises much, I still would vote for him over Hillary ( or any of the Clintons, who I see as war criminals and basically murderers for all of the military conflicts they started or have been voting/working for).
Trump, on the other hand, mentioned he might nominate Thiel for SCOTUS and might actually go through an honest default on the USA debt. This is totally enough to get my vote (if I was voting).
Of-course there is also Gary Johnson in the race, so I would vote for him instead.
I see, for you the government is your brain and you are a cell. Judging from the quality and type of the comment you just left there, you must be one of those cells found around the anus area. I can totally understand why you would think you need an external brain of that type.
For the actual free people (as opposed to body cells, ants, bees and such) government is more of an armed shit monster.
I am not in the USA but you are correct and that is the problem.
You are not a wise man.
The government oppression and theft was what led to fascism in the first place. The government oppression and theft was what led to cold war and to every war.
sustained the cold war which avoided you from being oppressed by communism,
- I am a former Soviet, lets just get that out of the way, born in the USSR. Were people in my former country oppressed by Communism? I think they were.
Of-course that makes perfect sense. It will mean though that UBI will end very quickly as well, why would you vote to tax yourself? I wouldn't vote to tax myself ever. This means though that inflation would completely wipe out the cheques and UBI will be impossible to live on.
It's definitely gotten more pronounced in the last few years, going from grumbling about government to out and out hatred of government.
- good, that's a solution, not a problem. The problem is the government (oppression of the individual freedom by the collective), the solution is removal of the problem.
I thought maybe we must autotune it as well?
I see that you brought up Fascism, let me interject this thought: UBI is Communism and from point of view of economics Fascism is actually a more stable system than Communism. Both are abhorrent obviously (obvious to people who prefer individual freedom to any form of oppression), yet Fascism will survive longer than Communism because Fascism allows private property to be possessed and controlled at least partially. A Fascist will not interfere (but will help) a corporation to become and stay a monopoly as long as the Fascist gets control and a large cut from the proceeds.
A Communist will require that each must work according to his or her ability and each must consume according to his or her need, all this while actually nationalizing and controlling the means of production.
You may argue that UBI is not Communism because the means of production do not have to be nationalized, I beg to differ. UBI will *require* that the means of production are nationalized because if the means of production are not nationalized the private property owner (say a miner or a factory or other type of a productive company owner) can produce in the country with UBI but *not sell in that country to avoid income taxation*.
Here is the point: if let's say there are 1000 people, 10 of them own the largest means of production (mines, factories), the 990 would have to be supported by the 10.
However the income of the 10 has to come from other production, from people who produce themselves in order to consume what the 10 produce. If the 990 do not produce anything, the 10 gain nothing at all, indeed they are losing money (money as an expression of the productive output) on every single transaction. At that point there is no trade between the 10 and the 990, there is no exchange of goods.
Simplify: if there are 2 people, person A makes food (hunts?) and person B does nothing that person A needs, taking 'money' (food) from person A and giving it to person B creates consumption of-course, but it in no way benefits person B because there is no trade.
In a country of 318 million (USA) there are maybe a few tens of thousands of people who own real means of production. If they are forced to pay the millions without jobs a stipend in form of a UBI or anything else so that those millions could then "buy" (what a funny word in this context - buy) the productive output of those few tens of thousands then these tens of thousands have 0 use for the unproductive millions.
Why would they participate? Their means of production will have to be nationalized, they will be working under complete oppression, where they will have no choice but to provide the millions with their productive output under the barrels of millions of guns.
You can call that whatever, but it is nationalization and oppression, it is Communism - from those who can, to those who want/need.
This system will implode like any other communist system, you can only have hunger and devastation under that scenario, we have proven it conclusively back in the USSR.
I am completely against for using collectivism and government oppression to steal from anybody to subsidise anybody. I abhor any form of collectivism, socialism, fascism, communism or government in general. Nobody has a right to steal from anybody person and for that to be OK because it's a 'democracy'.
I understand that /. readers are not amused by videos much, however there is only a video form of this content, which I think is extremely relevant to the topic here and at least it should be interesting for those, who are capable of discerning details and nuance.
Unions, collectivism, government with its money and market manipulation have destroyed the savings in the USA, pushed the productive people out of the country and now they are calling for milking the remaining productive people so that whoever is still in the union can jump right from their 'ensured' job position to an ensured retirement.
This guys is no fool, he understands where the bread is buttered, he knows that his amazing skills are not what is required in the real productive world. What he does not understand is that the real productive world that still keeps feeding the USA to the tune of over 500,000,000,000 USD a / year (trade deficit) cannot actually be taxed to give him a cushy retirement.
Good luck with that idea though, you'll need all of these fantastic ideas when the dollar and the bond collapse. What would a USD denominated cheque buy you at that time? I am sure *you will get your cheques*, I just don't think you'll be buying much in terms of products for them because you are not producing anything of value and the only thing you have produced with your collectivism is destruction.
I saw live stream of the Iraq invasion, it has been done, I only expect it to be livestreamed now with drone feeds, body cams and all.
It has everything to do with it. There wouldn't be any of this money flowing through the system without 0% interest rates and various QE programs. People wouldn't waste their own *savings* on these so called 'business models' of giving away free stuff for years without the Fed providing the money and the government providing a guarantee.
So were these sites ever profitable? I assume that Kim Dot Com was running Mega profitably, was this one ever cash flow positive?
On a side note how about all the other cash flow negative internet 'businesses' (hobbies AFAIC)? I fully expect the Fed to announce a new round of QE sometime but not too long after the elections, that will help them I suppose. Other than that those types of enterprises should also be readying to shut down.