found when he paid his workers what was then considered an outlandishly high wage, if workers are being underpaid, then increasing their wages actually increases economic activity. His workers were paid enough to afford to buy the cars they were building.
- let me ask you something, if you hear somebody say something stupid that you have heard at the very least 100 tines before how would you react?
Henry Ford never did what you believe because that is idiotic. Henry For did what he did to keep his turnover low. His employees were better trained than any other factory employees, they were more productive because his factories were so much more advanced than others. This had 0 to do with the crap that you were sold and keep selling here. Go read his goddamn biography.
For a moment lets say that 300,000,000 people are out of jobs in America. What I am talking about is an economy that no longer allows any business to function unless the business is fully automated. The business does not see those 300,000,000 as customers to their product lines, many businesses will capitulate but some will scale down to the level of production needed to supply maybe 30-40 million people with goods and services that those 30-40 million can pay for *because* they are still employed and thus their productivity pays for the goods/services by creating goods/services in their own respective companies.
So 90% of the population is not working, 10% are working. You think that the 10% (or 1%, whatever) are able to feed, clothe, shelter, take care of health, etc. of the 90% unemployed people? That's interesting, what is the level of profit do you expect the 1-10% of the productive population to generate actually to achieve that?
More importantly, why do you think the 90% without jobs wouldn't take care of their own needs in the first place by starting businesses aimed at solving the issues of the 90%?
After all, 100% of the population on this planet didn't have jobs until the first job was created, people solved their own issues however they could (hunting, gathering, fishing and such). Today the barriers to entry into hunting, gathering, fishing are much higher in terms of the regulations and taxation that stand in the way of people attempting to do any of it.
Of-course in reality the 10% of the productive population could still provide the goods/services to everybody if they didn't have to deal with taxes, regulations (and most importantly with the government controlled currencies, thus inflation, fake interest rates) that steal productivity, and many companies would actually hire/need to hire workers to satisfy the demands of hundreds of millions, the automation is coming for what is well understood, not for businesses that are not yet understood or in existence in the first place.
I don't think you can say that a tiny minority of people would be 'lucky' only to pay ransom in lieu of being murdered by a hungry mob, you can say that it would be bad planning on the part of that minority to be victims of such circumstances. Bad planning of security, bad planning of controlling the government appetites for power and for spending.
In any case AFAIC the morality of private property rights (which means the morality of autonomy) outweighs any desire for any number of people to take what does not belong to them. Sure, they will do so, but protecting yourself against it is a moral imperative. It is a *moral* imperative, no private property violation should go unpunished and if there is no government (and I am against government) then the protection and punishment is a private matter.
Nonsense, roads do generate profit and if they do not that's only because government steals money from people leaving them without means to build their own infrastructure that is actually profitable.
It would be a good idea because politicians don't pay taxes. Politicians are paid from taxes that are derived from people who actually make money, so any tax a politician 'pays' is just a trick to make it look like he pays taxes. Taxes are paid from product that is created, politicians don't create products and they don't provide services, so they don't make money, thus 'taxes' on them is a cute accounting trick.
However if you were actually to tax politicians properly you would have to tax their real income, which is all of the political donations, favours, money made from future positions where they would get something in return for the favours they grant to people and companies today. Now that would be something.
Why the fuck do you think operational efficiency has an inverse correlation with profits?
- it doesn't if there is no competition. If there is competition then any newly gained efficiency is used to cover more market, this forces competition to find their own efficiencies, one pushes the other until the one that survives does so on the thinnest of margins.
There are companies that sell luxury items, then there are companies that serve everybody else. Retail chains live on 1-2 percentage points, of-course 1-2 percentage points of a few hundred million is good living, but it does nothing at all to provide any form of UBI first of all and secondly should they be stripped of their savings they will go out of business in the first year that's tougher than normal.
You know what, do it, tax the people who are not generating profits, see how fast you have no businesses left in your neck of the woods, that's your ideology so put it to practice, commit economic suicide.
it should pay for itself and if it doesn't pay for itself (does not generate profits) then it shouldn't be happening in the first place, if it does pay for itself, then it's not a government function.
There shouldn't be any income and property related taxes period, but a revenue tax (as opposed to a profit tax) will shut down a very large number of companies outright.
You can't tax revenue. A company may live on a super thin margin (or even generate a loss), explain how you will tax revenue and where exactly the money will come from if the revenue minus expenses = a negative number?
Taxing somebody on revenue who generated a loss is called bankrupting them.
I am an anti-collectivist, an anarcho capitalist so I think your ideology is ridiculous, but if it was attempted here is what I think would happen:
When a business is efficient enough that it drives some competition out of business it is also efficient enough not to generate very large profits because its revenues and its operational expenses are not too far from each other. However if you actually take away whatever the profit margin that remains you may in fact destroy the business because it will not be able to innovate and it definitely may not be able to survive through tough economic times, when sales are not as good (a business *can* in fact generate a loss and it is not enough for it to receive tax credits to survive, it may shut down because it has no savings).
For whatever reason many here believe that these businesses that drive costs down will have huge profits that can be skimmed to provide some form of income to the unemployed. In reality there may be not much in terms of profits at all.
Beside which, if you tax profits too much people ensure that there are no profits to tax by doing all sorts of things, like for example by buying assets and generating losses. It's not difficult to generate a loss and pay no taxes at all actually.
There will be no UBI coming from corporate profits, that's not going to happen, end of story.
I am 100% against every form of income and wealth taxation and redistribution, but if we set that aside this so called 'article' claims that Amazon "made revenues of around 2.5 billion euros in Italy", well revenues are *not profits*. The taxes are not paid on revenues (revenues are income before covering the expenses). What were the *profits*?
what do you mean by that? Trump is business as usual. I actually want restructuring of the debts, I want clearing of the debt bubbles, I want the bursting of the government bubble, removal of 99.9999999% of everything that all governments do. Where do you see that in Trump at all?
How can such a crazy idea ever come to someone's head, cars travelling at 200km/h?
Of-course I routinely go at speeds much higher than that in my car, not in tunnels though. How about private infrastructure, like private roads built with private money and the owner of the road charging to build/operate/maintain it? Naah, impossible, that's a government's job.
Pure nonsense, there is no contract, I didn't sign it, it is an invention by the collectivists that want to justify their oppressive collectivism, statism, theft, robbery, injustice, oppression, slavery.
Yes, this is precisely how I see things, this is how I always saw things (for 4 decades years now), this is how I am going to see things in the future, nothing changes, I see it this way regardless of my personal circumstances and I had many interesting different personal circumstances. The type of circumstances that may turn people into complete socialists, may turn some people to faith, whatever, doesn't matter.
I see the so called society as a monstrous system that I was born into not by choice, if I had a choice then I would have preferred a completely totally anarcho capitalist society, not any form of collectivism. But I was born in the former USSR and moved around this planet quite a bit after that.
I am all for paying for infrastructure, I am all against paying to any form of government for anything. Infrastructure and everything should be private and when I need to use it I am all for paying for it to the owner of it.
Yes, taxation is theft and now that Trump came up with his plan to drastically reduce taxes and to starve the Beast, for the first time I feel like he is not going to be a complete disaster that I expected once he reneged on the promise to shut down ACA and such. But finally I am seeing some serious proposals to reduce this oppression though personally I see even 1% even 0.0000000000001% of income and wealth taxation as complete and utter injustice, oppression, slavery and complete destruction of all individual liberties.
That's completely idiotic on all accounts, every single one of them.
No, a business does not benefit if all the other businesses that it trades with gets hit by thieves. Every business loses when it gets hit by thieves, the prices go up due to losses, increase expenditures for protection, lost productive capacity and time.
No, a business is not better off if others get stolen from, he also gets stolen from, a business is better off without theft.
I am a person, I have a family, I started a business without any real wealth except for what I saved over a few years. Yes, I could have failed, yes, I took the risk. That's the point - taking a risk with your own money thus being diligent about the risks you take.
Taking risks with other people's money does not require anything, any idea of how to generate a profit in either short or long term.
Of-course UBI requires this 'BI' to be 'U', which means everybody gets this Universal income, which brings the value of that income to nothing. The market will adjust the prices up to the correct level and UBI will buy nothing. Of-course government wants their high inflation numbers, so maybe that's the actual goal - expand the money supply, expand the nominal dollars collected, never mind the fall in the actual value of the currency.
As to believes, you are the one inventing nonsense like 'Industrial Revolution caused massive poverty', when the reality is absolutely the opposite of your meth induced hallucinations. Industrial Revolution took people out of poverty, people moved to the cities who would never exist otherwise, would have stayed subsistence farmers and would only be able to consume what they themselves produce, thus never having any improvement in their standard of living.
Industrial Revolution brought up the standard of living of all to the point that they increased the population since that time 7 fold.
In what insane world is businesses "pushed away" by people having money to spend ?
- in the world where that money is taken from that very business, so that the business does not see positive trade balance, it sees a negative one. In the world where the value of money itself is destroyed via schemes of this nature because the money is not backed by any actual inherently valuable property, either commodity or even just labour.
For an equitable trade to happen between two sides, both sides have to receive something of value that at least matches what the sides are giving up. For you to understand this forget about cash, think barter.
2 sides only benefit when both end up with something they did not have before that they willingly traded for something they owned. You have a pig to trade and the other guy has a few bags of wheat, the market tells you that the exchange is equitable and you trade, both are left better off.
If one side has nothing to offer (is not producing anything) it's not actually trading, it's subtracting from people who are trading.
Person A runs a wheat farm, person B runs a pig farm, they can trade.
Person C does nothing, but lets say he steals a pig from person B. Now person C can trade some of the meat with person A.
However this theft subtracted from the productive capacity of the pig farmer and it never added anything to the productive capacity of the thief. The wheat farmer still gets the meat in exchange for his wheat, but if he went directly to person B and omitted the thief altogether it would be better for the real market participants (A and B), they have something to gain by trading with each other, it's a long term deal.
The theft by person C subtracts from the productive capacity directly, by removing the productive output (the pig) from the producer and it creates inefficiency where the pig farmer now has to start thinking about protecting his property where he didn't have to do that previously.
The business owners that protect their property by outsourcing, automation, by buying politicians are correct to do what they are doing, they are being stolen from.
people who could never DARE risk it before suddenly are able to open their own businesses - and employ their neighbours.
- nonsense. I never 'dared' to open a business, I just did, I put my savings on the line and used it to do so. But to say that UBI would allow somebody to start a business and even to pay something to an employee? Pure nonsense, with what money would they 'pay', they don't have anything *more* than the neighbour, after all, both are on UBI, which is supposedly only large enough not to starve in the streets. If it is large enough to open a business you are really advocating the type of wealth redistribution that makes even less sense economically, you are reducing the productive power of the existing valuable, viable businesses so much that others can spend that wealth doing whatever comes to their heads without really bothering with the consequences of the risk they are taking, because that's not their money.
People don't unnecessarily risk their money. Even the most idiotic collectivists would agree that if the government didn't guarantee the losses for the banks the banks wouldn't be taking risks with their own money. People tend to be careful with the money they *earned* as opposed to the money they got for free.
Bad outcomes: none.
- aha. I would argue that every government program ends up being a bad outcome, every one of them. Every one of them ends up doing the type of harm they are purporting to reduce. The war on drugs was won by drugs. The war on poverty was won by poverty. The war on terrorism seems to be lost to terrorists, they win because the individual liberties are in the craper and the government has only grown. Minimum wage laws create unemployment, public single payer health care destroys health care for all in
- no, American economy (and Canadian and many other Western economies) are failing to produce because they have failed the entire concept of economics, which is production. You cannot demand anything if you don't produce, these experiments will further drive poverty up in communities where they take place by ensuring further erosion of the value of the money they are using and by pushing businesses away, further increasing the perceived need for government intervention, which will intervene further by taking more from those who produce and redistributing to those who cannot.
This will end in a failure of the economic system and dismantling of the political structure, pushing entire nations into abject poverty (see Venezuela, North Korea, USSR, Cuba, etc.)
Bikes don't belong around cars. Bike lanes should be only built on the sidewalks, bikers don't pay neither taxes nor fees to have lanes given to them by the idiotic governments. I say hit every bike that is on the road, do it on purpose, run them off the roads even in bike lanes unless it is a *toll road* and they *paid* to take it.
So if you believe that go ahead, start your own business and see how that works out for you.
Businesses create everything, all products and all services, all salaries and even (unfortunately) all taxes. Without people starting businesses that produce more than the owner can consume there is no economy, there is no trade, there is no specialization. There are no jobs except for constant work to survive *somehow*.
All income taxes, all property taxes, all payroll taxes are paid out of money that businesses generate, literally create by work. There shouldn't *be* any of those taxes, but that is a separate discussion.
Regulations, that you dismiss so easily are not only around accounting. Do you know that businesses around you are *forced* to spy on you by the government that the collectivists brought to power? All business regulations are taxes of-course, they are all costs. Labour laws, how you hire people, how you fire people, how you deal with your clients, there are regulations in everything, it is all permeating and if a government official wants to cause harm to *any* business, he can do so easily. Businesses are *targets* for lawsuits, for government actions *because* businesses make money.
When I sat make money, I literally mean making Monet, as in creating real wealth. Those who create are targets for those who want to take, to steal.
Businesses shouldn't be paying any taxes, individuals can pat some fees, but even individuals shouldn't be paying taxes. Again, a separate discussion. However the really important point to understand is this: if businesses leave, if there are no businesses left you have nothing, not much at all.
Collectivists are making sure that businesses leave. Of course businesses fight back, they pay off to who they are supposed to, it all makes sense, but it is bad policy to structure the society in the way that forces people to fight it. In the long run the mob gets the shaft anyway, being left without a working economy (Venezuela, USSR, Cuba, north Korea, and soon USA), and being left without any individual freedoms at the same time.
The mob votes in the politicians on the promise of stealing from those who run businesses, it is all about jealousy of course. The mob wants what it sees as the luxury that the business owners allow themselves by building working businesses. The mob wants that and gets the politicians to steal. SS, Medicare, minimum wage, labour laws, IRS, The Federal reserve bank (independent from government my ass), FDIC, FHA, FDA, EPA, FBI, DEA, you name it. At the end the economy gets destroyed.
If you become a business owner yourself you will realise what a box you are in, everybody wants to steal from you, the mob and its politicians, the rules set up by the competition through the politicians, the fake money that the Fed manipulates and the fake interest rates... You end up being blamed for the bad economy while basically you are the reason there is any economy at all. So it all makes sense. Do not pay taxes, find every possible way to avoid taxes and regulations, pay off, do whatever needs to be done. The society is a sick, jealous, lazy, collectivist mob and you are on your own against it.
Let's see, how about all these other people (from Wikipedia):
former Secretary of State George Shultz, William Perry (former Secretary of Defense), Henry Kissinger (former Secretary of State), Sam Nunn (former U.S. Senator), Bill Frist (former U.S. Senator and heart-transplant surgeon), Gary Roughead (Admiral, USN, retired), James Mattis (General, USMC), Richard Kovacevich (former Wells Fargo Chairman and CEO) and Riley Bechtel (chairman of the board and former CEO at Bechtel Group).... The board included past presidents or board members of the American Association for Clinical Chemistry such as Susan A. Evans, William Foege, former director U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, David Helfet, director of the Orthopedic Trauma Service at the Hospital for Special Surgery and professors, Ann M. Gronowski, Larry J. Kricka, Jack Ladenson, Andy O. Miller and Steven Spitalnik.
Fabrizio Bonanni (former executive vice president of Amgen), Richard Kovacevich and William Foege, (former director of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention), who would help to publicly introduce its technologies....
there were many people involved there, people with government ties. This con was beautifully done, all the way till the inevitable failure. It may be not so easy just to pin everything on Holmes. The best con men (and women) are those, who are true believers in their own con, I wonder if she was (is) a true believer, did she con everybody else or also herself?
You cannot 'give money to keep the owners in business'. Real money is created with production. The money is created by work, it is created by the productive people.
Trade is exchange of the goods and services, it is not gifting of goods and services.
If 2 people are trading with each other by exchanging the products they created, injecting a non productive third person into the mix does not increase value for the 2 productive individuals, it may increase the nominal amount of trade, if their products are taken away by force to allow the unproductive to use the products and to trade the products with the first two, the actual value of the trade goes down, because the unproductive one consumes part of the product that he gets from the first two and can only trade a small part of what is left over from his consumption.
UBI is a modern version of communism and as all such schemes requires nationalization of productive resources, companies and property. When the state nationalizes (steals) stuff, it is not done to make anything better, it is all about enriching some politicians and their friends.
Of course it is. The name of the site is not 'vkintakta', it is 'vkontakte', which means being in contact or 'in touch'.
V -in, kontakt - contact. The last letter is 'e', which is the ending on the noun implying that the thing is 'in' something. Russian language conjugates words in a sentemce with endings, suffixes, prefixes, etc.
Sounds wonderful, as long as I can insert a USB stick to boot from and install Mint on the laptop, which is the first thing I do to any computer I get.
Slashdot Mirror
found when he paid his workers what was then considered an outlandishly high wage, if workers are being underpaid, then increasing their wages actually increases economic activity. His workers were paid enough to afford to buy the cars they were building.
- let me ask you something, if you hear somebody say something stupid that you have heard at the very least 100 tines before how would you react?
Henry Ford never did what you believe because that is idiotic. Henry For did what he did to keep his turnover low. His employees were better trained than any other factory employees, they were more productive because his factories were so much more advanced than others. This had 0 to do with the crap that you were sold and keep selling here. Go read his goddamn biography.
For a moment lets say that 300,000,000 people are out of jobs in America. What I am talking about is an economy that no longer allows any business to function unless the business is fully automated. The business does not see those 300,000,000 as customers to their product lines, many businesses will capitulate but some will scale down to the level of production needed to supply maybe 30-40 million people with goods and services that those 30-40 million can pay for *because* they are still employed and thus their productivity pays for the goods/services by creating goods/services in their own respective companies.
So 90% of the population is not working, 10% are working. You think that the 10% (or 1%, whatever) are able to feed, clothe, shelter, take care of health, etc. of the 90% unemployed people? That's interesting, what is the level of profit do you expect the 1-10% of the productive population to generate actually to achieve that?
More importantly, why do you think the 90% without jobs wouldn't take care of their own needs in the first place by starting businesses aimed at solving the issues of the 90%?
After all, 100% of the population on this planet didn't have jobs until the first job was created, people solved their own issues however they could (hunting, gathering, fishing and such). Today the barriers to entry into hunting, gathering, fishing are much higher in terms of the regulations and taxation that stand in the way of people attempting to do any of it.
Of-course in reality the 10% of the productive population could still provide the goods/services to everybody if they didn't have to deal with taxes, regulations (and most importantly with the government controlled currencies, thus inflation, fake interest rates) that steal productivity, and many companies would actually hire/need to hire workers to satisfy the demands of hundreds of millions, the automation is coming for what is well understood, not for businesses that are not yet understood or in existence in the first place.
I don't think you can say that a tiny minority of people would be 'lucky' only to pay ransom in lieu of being murdered by a hungry mob, you can say that it would be bad planning on the part of that minority to be victims of such circumstances. Bad planning of security, bad planning of controlling the government appetites for power and for spending.
In any case AFAIC the morality of private property rights (which means the morality of autonomy) outweighs any desire for any number of people to take what does not belong to them. Sure, they will do so, but protecting yourself against it is a moral imperative. It is a *moral* imperative, no private property violation should go unpunished and if there is no government (and I am against government) then the protection and punishment is a private matter.
Nonsense, roads do generate profit and if they do not that's only because government steals money from people leaving them without means to build their own infrastructure that is actually profitable.
It would be a good idea because politicians don't pay taxes. Politicians are paid from taxes that are derived from people who actually make money, so any tax a politician 'pays' is just a trick to make it look like he pays taxes. Taxes are paid from product that is created, politicians don't create products and they don't provide services, so they don't make money, thus 'taxes' on them is a cute accounting trick.
However if you were actually to tax politicians properly you would have to tax their real income, which is all of the political donations, favours, money made from future positions where they would get something in return for the favours they grant to people and companies today. Now that would be something.
Why the fuck do you think operational efficiency has an inverse correlation with profits?
- it doesn't if there is no competition. If there is competition then any newly gained efficiency is used to cover more market, this forces competition to find their own efficiencies, one pushes the other until the one that survives does so on the thinnest of margins.
There are companies that sell luxury items, then there are companies that serve everybody else. Retail chains live on 1-2 percentage points, of-course 1-2 percentage points of a few hundred million is good living, but it does nothing at all to provide any form of UBI first of all and secondly should they be stripped of their savings they will go out of business in the first year that's tougher than normal.
You know what, do it, tax the people who are not generating profits, see how fast you have no businesses left in your neck of the woods, that's your ideology so put it to practice, commit economic suicide.
it should pay for itself and if it doesn't pay for itself (does not generate profits) then it shouldn't be happening in the first place, if it does pay for itself, then it's not a government function.
But "taxes are theft" libertarians are fascists, who want a large, strong central government controlling every part of our lives.
- idiot.
There shouldn't be any income and property related taxes period, but a revenue tax (as opposed to a profit tax) will shut down a very large number of companies outright.
You can't tax revenue. A company may live on a super thin margin (or even generate a loss), explain how you will tax revenue and where exactly the money will come from if the revenue minus expenses = a negative number?
Taxing somebody on revenue who generated a loss is called bankrupting them.
I am an anti-collectivist, an anarcho capitalist so I think your ideology is ridiculous, but if it was attempted here is what I think would happen:
When a business is efficient enough that it drives some competition out of business it is also efficient enough not to generate very large profits because its revenues and its operational expenses are not too far from each other. However if you actually take away whatever the profit margin that remains you may in fact destroy the business because it will not be able to innovate and it definitely may not be able to survive through tough economic times, when sales are not as good (a business *can* in fact generate a loss and it is not enough for it to receive tax credits to survive, it may shut down because it has no savings).
For whatever reason many here believe that these businesses that drive costs down will have huge profits that can be skimmed to provide some form of income to the unemployed. In reality there may be not much in terms of profits at all.
Beside which, if you tax profits too much people ensure that there are no profits to tax by doing all sorts of things, like for example by buying assets and generating losses. It's not difficult to generate a loss and pay no taxes at all actually.
There will be no UBI coming from corporate profits, that's not going to happen, end of story.
I am 100% against every form of income and wealth taxation and redistribution, but if we set that aside this so called 'article' claims that Amazon "made revenues of around 2.5 billion euros in Italy", well revenues are *not profits*. The taxes are not paid on revenues (revenues are income before covering the expenses). What were the *profits*?
what do you mean by that? Trump is business as usual. I actually want restructuring of the debts, I want clearing of the debt bubbles, I want the bursting of the government bubble, removal of 99.9999999% of everything that all governments do. Where do you see that in Trump at all?
How can such a crazy idea ever come to someone's head, cars travelling at 200km/h?
Of-course I routinely go at speeds much higher than that in my car, not in tunnels though. How about private infrastructure, like private roads built with private money and the owner of the road charging to build/operate/maintain it? Naah, impossible, that's a government's job.
Pure nonsense, there is no contract, I didn't sign it, it is an invention by the collectivists that want to justify their oppressive collectivism, statism, theft, robbery, injustice, oppression, slavery.
Yes, this is precisely how I see things, this is how I always saw things (for 4 decades years now), this is how I am going to see things in the future, nothing changes, I see it this way regardless of my personal circumstances and I had many interesting different personal circumstances. The type of circumstances that may turn people into complete socialists, may turn some people to faith, whatever, doesn't matter.
I see the so called society as a monstrous system that I was born into not by choice, if I had a choice then I would have preferred a completely totally anarcho capitalist society, not any form of collectivism. But I was born in the former USSR and moved around this planet quite a bit after that.
I am all for paying for infrastructure, I am all against paying to any form of government for anything. Infrastructure and everything should be private and when I need to use it I am all for paying for it to the owner of it.
Yes, taxation is theft and now that Trump came up with his plan to drastically reduce taxes and to starve the Beast, for the first time I feel like he is not going to be a complete disaster that I expected once he reneged on the promise to shut down ACA and such. But finally I am seeing some serious proposals to reduce this oppression though personally I see even 1% even 0.0000000000001% of income and wealth taxation as complete and utter injustice, oppression, slavery and complete destruction of all individual liberties.
Go Trump I guess!
That's completely idiotic on all accounts, every single one of them.
No, a business does not benefit if all the other businesses that it trades with gets hit by thieves. Every business loses when it gets hit by thieves, the prices go up due to losses, increase expenditures for protection, lost productive capacity and time.
No, a business is not better off if others get stolen from, he also gets stolen from, a business is better off without theft.
I am a person, I have a family, I started a business without any real wealth except for what I saved over a few years. Yes, I could have failed, yes, I took the risk. That's the point - taking a risk with your own money thus being diligent about the risks you take.
Taking risks with other people's money does not require anything, any idea of how to generate a profit in either short or long term.
Of-course UBI requires this 'BI' to be 'U', which means everybody gets this Universal income, which brings the value of that income to nothing. The market will adjust the prices up to the correct level and UBI will buy nothing. Of-course government wants their high inflation numbers, so maybe that's the actual goal - expand the money supply, expand the nominal dollars collected, never mind the fall in the actual value of the currency.
As to believes, you are the one inventing nonsense like 'Industrial Revolution caused massive poverty', when the reality is absolutely the opposite of your meth induced hallucinations. Industrial Revolution took people out of poverty, people moved to the cities who would never exist otherwise, would have stayed subsistence farmers and would only be able to consume what they themselves produce, thus never having any improvement in their standard of living.
Industrial Revolution brought up the standard of living of all to the point that they increased the population since that time 7 fold.
In what insane world is businesses "pushed away" by people having money to spend ?
- in the world where that money is taken from that very business, so that the business does not see positive trade balance, it sees a negative one. In the world where the value of money itself is destroyed via schemes of this nature because the money is not backed by any actual inherently valuable property, either commodity or even just labour.
For an equitable trade to happen between two sides, both sides have to receive something of value that at least matches what the sides are giving up. For you to understand this forget about cash, think barter.
2 sides only benefit when both end up with something they did not have before that they willingly traded for something they owned. You have a pig to trade and the other guy has a few bags of wheat, the market tells you that the exchange is equitable and you trade, both are left better off.
If one side has nothing to offer (is not producing anything) it's not actually trading, it's subtracting from people who are trading.
Person A runs a wheat farm, person B runs a pig farm, they can trade.
Person C does nothing, but lets say he steals a pig from person B. Now person C can trade some of the meat with person A.
However this theft subtracted from the productive capacity of the pig farmer and it never added anything to the productive capacity of the thief. The wheat farmer still gets the meat in exchange for his wheat, but if he went directly to person B and omitted the thief altogether it would be better for the real market participants (A and B), they have something to gain by trading with each other, it's a long term deal.
The theft by person C subtracts from the productive capacity directly, by removing the productive output (the pig) from the producer and it creates inefficiency where the pig farmer now has to start thinking about protecting his property where he didn't have to do that previously.
The business owners that protect their property by outsourcing, automation, by buying politicians are correct to do what they are doing, they are being stolen from.
people who could never DARE risk it before suddenly are able to open their own businesses - and employ their neighbours.
- nonsense. I never 'dared' to open a business, I just did, I put my savings on the line and used it to do so. But to say that UBI would allow somebody to start a business and even to pay something to an employee? Pure nonsense, with what money would they 'pay', they don't have anything *more* than the neighbour, after all, both are on UBI, which is supposedly only large enough not to starve in the streets. If it is large enough to open a business you are really advocating the type of wealth redistribution that makes even less sense economically, you are reducing the productive power of the existing valuable, viable businesses so much that others can spend that wealth doing whatever comes to their heads without really bothering with the consequences of the risk they are taking, because that's not their money.
People don't unnecessarily risk their money. Even the most idiotic collectivists would agree that if the government didn't guarantee the losses for the banks the banks wouldn't be taking risks with their own money. People tend to be careful with the money they *earned* as opposed to the money they got for free.
Bad outcomes: none.
- aha. I would argue that every government program ends up being a bad outcome, every one of them. Every one of them ends up doing the type of harm they are purporting to reduce. The war on drugs was won by drugs. The war on poverty was won by poverty. The war on terrorism seems to be lost to terrorists, they win because the individual liberties are in the craper and the government has only grown. Minimum wage laws create unemployment, public single payer health care destroys health care for all in
Supply side economics has clearly failed.
- no, American economy (and Canadian and many other Western economies) are failing to produce because they have failed the entire concept of economics, which is production. You cannot demand anything if you don't produce, these experiments will further drive poverty up in communities where they take place by ensuring further erosion of the value of the money they are using and by pushing businesses away, further increasing the perceived need for government intervention, which will intervene further by taking more from those who produce and redistributing to those who cannot.
This will end in a failure of the economic system and dismantling of the political structure, pushing entire nations into abject poverty (see Venezuela, North Korea, USSR, Cuba, etc.)
Bikes don't belong around cars. Bike lanes should be only built on the sidewalks, bikers don't pay neither taxes nor fees to have lanes given to them by the idiotic governments. I say hit every bike that is on the road, do it on purpose, run them off the roads even in bike lanes unless it is a *toll road* and they *paid* to take it.
So if you believe that go ahead, start your own business and see how that works out for you.
Businesses create everything, all products and all services, all salaries and even (unfortunately) all taxes. Without people starting businesses that produce more than the owner can consume there is no economy, there is no trade, there is no specialization. There are no jobs except for constant work to survive *somehow*.
All income taxes, all property taxes, all payroll taxes are paid out of money that businesses generate, literally create by work. There shouldn't *be* any of those taxes, but that is a separate discussion.
Regulations, that you dismiss so easily are not only around accounting. Do you know that businesses around you are *forced* to spy on you by the government that the collectivists brought to power? All business regulations are taxes of-course, they are all costs. Labour laws, how you hire people, how you fire people, how you deal with your clients, there are regulations in everything, it is all permeating and if a government official wants to cause harm to *any* business, he can do so easily. Businesses are *targets* for lawsuits, for government actions *because* businesses make money.
When I sat make money, I literally mean making Monet, as in creating real wealth. Those who create are targets for those who want to take, to steal.
Businesses shouldn't be paying any taxes, individuals can pat some fees, but even individuals shouldn't be paying taxes. Again, a separate discussion. However the really important point to understand is this: if businesses leave, if there are no businesses left you have nothing, not much at all.
Collectivists are making sure that businesses leave. Of course businesses fight back, they pay off to who they are supposed to, it all makes sense, but it is bad policy to structure the society in the way that forces people to fight it. In the long run the mob gets the shaft anyway, being left without a working economy (Venezuela, USSR, Cuba, north Korea, and soon USA), and being left without any individual freedoms at the same time.
The mob votes in the politicians on the promise of stealing from those who run businesses, it is all about jealousy of course. The mob wants what it sees as the luxury that the business owners allow themselves by building working businesses. The mob wants that and gets the politicians to steal. SS, Medicare, minimum wage, labour laws, IRS, The Federal reserve bank (independent from government my ass), FDIC, FHA, FDA, EPA, FBI, DEA, you name it. At the end the economy gets destroyed.
If you become a business owner yourself you will realise what a box you are in, everybody wants to steal from you, the mob and its politicians, the rules set up by the competition through the politicians, the fake money that the Fed manipulates and the fake interest rates... You end up being blamed for the bad economy while basically you are the reason there is any economy at all. So it all makes sense. Do not pay taxes, find every possible way to avoid taxes and regulations, pay off, do whatever needs to be done. The society is a sick, jealous, lazy, collectivist mob and you are on your own against it.
Let's see, how about all these other people (from Wikipedia):
former Secretary of State George Shultz, William Perry (former Secretary of Defense), Henry Kissinger (former Secretary of State), Sam Nunn (former U.S. Senator), Bill Frist (former U.S. Senator and heart-transplant surgeon), Gary Roughead (Admiral, USN, retired), James Mattis (General, USMC), Richard Kovacevich (former Wells Fargo Chairman and CEO) and Riley Bechtel (chairman of the board and former CEO at Bechtel Group). ...
The board included past presidents or board members of the American Association for Clinical Chemistry such as Susan A. Evans, William Foege, former director U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, David Helfet, director of the Orthopedic Trauma Service at the Hospital for Special Surgery and professors, Ann M. Gronowski, Larry J. Kricka, Jack Ladenson, Andy O. Miller and Steven Spitalnik.
Fabrizio Bonanni (former executive vice president of Amgen), Richard Kovacevich and William Foege, (former director of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention), who would help to publicly introduce its technologies....
there were many people involved there, people with government ties. This con was beautifully done, all the way till the inevitable failure. It may be not so easy just to pin everything on Holmes. The best con men (and women) are those, who are true believers in their own con, I wonder if she was (is) a true believer, did she con everybody else or also herself?
You cannot 'give money to keep the owners in business'. Real money is created with production. The money is created by work, it is created by the productive people.
Trade is exchange of the goods and services, it is not gifting of goods and services.
If 2 people are trading with each other by exchanging the products they created, injecting a non productive third person into the mix does not increase value for the 2 productive individuals, it may increase the nominal amount of trade, if their products are taken away by force to allow the unproductive to use the products and to trade the products with the first two, the actual value of the trade goes down, because the unproductive one consumes part of the product that he gets from the first two and can only trade a small part of what is left over from his consumption.
UBI is a modern version of communism and as all such schemes requires nationalization of productive resources, companies and property. When the state nationalizes (steals) stuff, it is not done to make anything better, it is all about enriching some politicians and their friends.
True that, though at that time customers actually paid for the experience.
Of course it is. The name of the site is not 'vkintakta', it is 'vkontakte', which means being in contact or 'in touch'.
V -in, kontakt - contact. The last letter is 'e', which is the ending on the noun implying that the thing is 'in' something. Russian language conjugates words in a sentemce with endings, suffixes, prefixes, etc.
Sounds wonderful, as long as I can insert a USB stick to boot from and install Mint on the laptop, which is the first thing I do to any computer I get.