Keeping with traditional 'wisdom' of entangled particles (there has been given a link which cast some doubt on this), the reason why what you say doesn't transfer information is as follows:
Say the answer is yes. You open the box with yes. It automatically collapses the wavefront, making the particle determined to a +1 or -1, whatever. You have no control over whether it's +1 or -1, however; it happens fully randomly. So you can't impart info directly that way, agreed?
But, you say, that doesn't matter, since it's the 'yes' box with the qubit that is of importance, and you know that means 'yes'. But... how can the folks back at Earth know? If they open the yes box, they'll see a +1 or a -1. But if they open the no-box, they'll see a +1 or -1 as well. That's because the wavefront collapses in both cases *regardless* of who measured it (you at 20 lightyears, or the folks at home). So the only thing you see, is a +1 or -1 in both boxes, and you can't know if it's there because YOU measured it and caused the wavefront to collapse, or whether it's due to THEIR measurement. In both cases, as soon as anyone measures it, you get a random outcome. And if you don't measure it, you don't know if 'the other side' has changed it or not.
It's the *measuring* that makes it collapse in a random way, whomever observes the state of the qubit. And you can't get the state of the qubit *before* you observed and measured it, and you can't know if it's there because *you* measured it, or *they* did. Basically, the only thing you know is, if you measure a +1, they'll have a -1. But that doesn't help anything in conveying any information, since it's randomly determined.
Now, there's been a link to a paper which claims it is possible to measure whether a qubit is determined or undetermined *without* collapsing the wavefront. Obviously, that would change things. If true. But if not, it's easy to see with my explanation why you wouldn't get any info out of it.
Someone more able to work in the detail of QM should comment.
Off the top of my head: I guess this is saying that if when they measure in this manner the result comes out in a certain way they know the photon still has an un-collapsed wave function? Presumably if it had a definite state it would be either vertically or horizontally polarised ? I'm still not sure that the wave function of the 'second' particle will actually show locally as having collapsed just because the 'first' particle was measured. It's just that when you perform a full measurement you'll get the complementary value.
I don't think it actually claims it can measure *what* determined state it is in (what kind of polarisation has taken place). Because in that case, you can't but have a collapsed wavefront, since you actually determined the exact state of the particle itself.
What they're saying is that they can determine *whether* or not a qubit has an undetermined or determined state (without saying anything more about the determined state, thus).
They say they can measure whether it's 'set', or whether it's 'not set', without collapsing it. And, following logic, that alone would be enough to impart some information, indeed. Because if one had 100 individual qubits that are supposed to be in an undetermined state, yet when you measure it at Alpha Centauri (without the wave-function being collapsed), and it would turn out some of them were undetermined, but some aren't anymore (because of polarisation of the entangled qubits deliberately done on Earth), you could create a pattern that sends information. Even if there were random fluctuations individually, you could still filter it out statistically.
IF true, it should be possible, in principle, to have FTL communication. Since that is no small matter, and would earn you a nobel-prize, it's strange to see no paper dealing with this, even after 3 years since its publication...
One of the core tenets was exactly that; that indeterminate states are observationally indistinguishable from determinate states, until it actually got observed, in which case the wavefront collapses in a random way (and thus, no information could be retrieved by it).
However, it seems there is a paper claiming one can measure the (polarisation) state of a qubit without collapsing the wavefront. If this turns out to be true, in principle, it would be possible to get information from the state of that wavefront (to be exact, whether or not it was determined or not - not *how* it was polarised/determined). Logic dictates that, if true, it would be possible to have a set-up where you have several qubits that are originally in an undetermined state, and then you look at each of them if they're still undetermined 10 lightyears away, and create a pattern (and thus info) that way. Even with some random fluctuation in wavefront-collapses, it should be possible to statistically retrieve info out of it.
IF it's true. If not, then it's exactly as I said. And in that case, your last sentence makes no sense, since if the state has been determined, the particle will of course not 'pretend' anymore to be in an indeterminate state. Only, since it's not possible to measure it without determining it (which the paper disputes now), and since the determination is random, it follows no information can be retrieved from it.
To be precise, it's a verbose way of acknowledging I *could* be wrong.;-)
Then again, if everyone would be willing to do the same thing on slashdot, debates would considerable improve around here.:-p
The only thing I find strange, seen the dramatic implications of it, is that there seems to be no paper who has tried it out and confirmed FTL communication. I'm sure it would have been world-news and we'd all heard about it, if it was the case. And it's been 3 years since that paper...
Thus, I'm leaving it open for now, but that doesn't change the logic behind it that, if confirmed, the major objection I raised in my particular parent post, has become largely void.
I'm actually not naively endorsing it, nor do I find it extremely likely, and thus I would like to see this paper confirmed by other experiments, especially in an FTL communication set-up, but facts are facts, and IF it would turn out to be true that you can measure a state of a qubit without destroying the wavefront, in principle, you could get information across. It's...well... it's the logical consequence of it, isn't it? Can't help it.
On the other hand, if I were proven wrong and FTL communication were possible, it's actually opening up a lot of possibilities. I'm not one to speculate into fantasies too much, but once you can have instant two-way--communication, it should also be possible, in principle, to, say, have a real-time experience on another planet with a robot-avatar you send to an extra-terrestrial planet before. (presuming you can live enough to wait out the time it needs to get there, so maybe Mars would be a better goal).
Anyway, first things first. I would like to see it confirmed or refuted.
Now... the whole thing of me saying it's impossible is based on the assumption that you can't measure a qubit directly without destroying the wavefront. Which, while not a 'law' of physics, was pretty much a core tenet. If that doesn't hold anymore, the principle objection to FTL communication is gone too (I've made another post explaining why, but I'm sure you can see and realise this yourself too).
I too, want to see it repeated and verified first as well, though.:-)
IF it's confirmed, it should be relatively easy to test if it's also applicable and suited for FTL communication. I'm rather sceptical as of yet, but in principle, if the paper is right, I'm forced to re-evaluate my stance on FTL, at least on the grounds that I used (there could be other reasons).
The only thing I find a bit surprising is, if the paper is correct - and it's from 2013 I believe - why no-one has tried out the obvious FTL implications of it. (And if they were successful, I'm sure we'd heard about it).
I find it...unlikely... but not to the same degree as the EM-drive being an actual reactionless drive.;-)
If you have any thoughts on this matter, feel free to share them.
I would say you're partially right. Journeying on itself can be fun. However, at a certain point you have to draw the line. For instance, claims without (scientific) proof about subjects that we already know of that are impossible (in the sense that it breaks basic laws we otherwise already would have measured and observed it long ago, if true), is a futile endeavour. It becomes the realm of pseudo-science, and that does more damage to science than anything else. That's why claims like that of the EM-drive, that violates CoE and CoM by simply bouncing microwaves around in itself as a closed compartment, is bullocks. If a microwave-oven (which it is, basically) could violate it that easily, without it leaving normal physics we already know of, then we would already have observed that through myriads of other experiments long ago.
That said, quantum entanglement is less well understood. It doesn't mean 'everything' is possible as some seem to believe, but the boundaries are more unclear. The statement that FTL communication is impossible is only true as far as the wavefunction can not be measured without collapsing it. Which has always thought to be the case, but I just got a link here to a paper which claims it succeeded in measuring a property (namely being polarised or not) without collapsing the wavefront. Which would make FTL communication rather a technical problem rather than breaking any physical law (not that it was defined as such, but it used to be regarded as pretty well established). However, I have little doubt that anything which is a mere *technical* obstacle, humanity can overcome, eventually.
Point is, if that paper is correct and it can be falsified and confirmed, it should be possible to set up a system to see if FTL isn't feasible afterall. Thus, science knows no absolutes, as you say.:-)
In any case, lets be sceptical until more experiments confirm or refute the claims of that paper.
I'll grant you that is an interesting read. They're basically saying they can measure a wavefunction and yet it doesn't collapse by the measurement of it. (To be precise, they measure a property through the wave-function, namely if it's polarised or not.) It doesn't say they could measure what kind of polarisation had taken place, only that it did or didn't. So it doesn't denote that once it is 'set' in a state, it's not random anymore (you can't choose in front *how* it would be polarised, without collapsing the wavefront). So what I said still stands. But, regardless, it does change the game, agreed. Because they say they can measure whether it's 'set', or whether it's not 'set', without collapsing it.
And, following logic, that alone would be enough to impart some information, indeed. Because if one had 100 individual qubits that are supposed to be in an undetermined state, yet when you measure it at Alpha Centauri (without the wave-function being collapsed), it would turn out some of them were undetermined, but some aren't anymore (because of polarisation of the entangled qubits done on Earth), you could create a pattern that sends information. Even if there were random fluctuations individually, you could still filter it out statistically.
Hmm. Is there any link/paper that handles FTL communication through this particular method? It seems to me, if that article is right, that it would be relatively easy to establish if it actually can be used for FTL communication*. I would have presumed someone would have done it already...(?) If so, I would welcome a link to such a paper.
*Note that the NASA experiment does not do that; as far as I've understood, they just want to maximise the information of photons send to the spacecraft through entanglement. But the information send is still at the speed of light, not FTL.
I used to think this was an option too, but the more I read about it, the more it became obvious that it wouldn't work. This is because, while you would easily and immediately have an influence on the paired quantumdot at Earth, even if you were 10 lightyears away, there is no way to direct or guide to any particular state in front. Meaning, the moment to interact with your entangled electron or photon, it would 'set' its state, but in a random way.
So the information encoded in entanglement is only extractable when you look at correlations between measurements on both the entangled systems. So to access that correlation information, you would need communication anyway, and that communication could not be FTL. If you only look at either system, but not the other, then you need no such communication, but you also can extract no information from the entanglement. This is actually a good thing, because much of science is done by ignoring entanglements, and the reason we get away with that is the information we are ignoring cannot interfere with our interpretation of the results of our experiment.
Suppose we split up two qubits in an entangled |00+|11state, where we've established that Alice is going to measure two overlapping bell curves with their double-slit experiment.Suppose Bob likes wavy interference patterns. The rules of quantum mechanics allow Bob to do, on his qubit, any unitary transformation like |0|112|0+12|112|012|1.
This takes our state to: 14|00+14|01+14|1014|11 Now supposing that Bob measures his qubit as 0 or 1, then Alice must measure either the wavy interference patterns 12|f0(x)+f1(x)|2 or 12|f0(x)f1(x)|2.
Bob can thereby instantaneously change, from a quantum perspective, what the outcomes of Alice's measurement are going to be.
Alice's wavefunction must change instantaneously and might even change retroactively: she may have already measured her qubit before Bob does this unitary transformation and measurement: nevertheless, to satisfy the predictions of quantum mechanics, her measurements must be consistent with Bob's manipulations. But that can't send messages. Because this thing that Bob has done is not directly visible to Alice. That's for a couple of reasons, the first being that this only generates one photon of results on the double-slit screen, which isn't enough to see the pattern! But suppose we measure lots and lots of these qubits to try and see the pattern: then the problem is that Alice doesn't know which ones Bob measured as 0 or which ones Bob measured as 1. Since there was a 50/50 chance of Bob getting either, what Alice sees is therefore: 14|f0(x)+f1(x)|2+14|f0(x)f1(x)|2=12|f0(x)|2+12|f1(x)|2.
Alice therefore still measures two overlapping bell curves, overall!
Where are the interference patterns?! That is very simple: when Bob and Alice compare their measurements in the first case, Bob's 0-measurement can be used to "filter" Alice's patterns into 12|f0(x)|2, the bell curve of photons which passed through only the first slit, and his 1-measurement filters the results to give 12|f1(x)|2,
Bob's transformation then changes how he can filter Alice's patterns: Alice's overlapping bell curves are now made up of the ones he measured 0 for, which describe one wavy pattern, and the ones he measured 1 for, which describe the other wavy pattern, and they add up into the non-wavy pattern.
"For a state who wants to do something, there's little to stop it. If you really have the will. Heck, if you want to play hardball, you can tell the super-rich to pay their taxes or you will take their companies."
That's in the same line as 'arrest all the rich people so they can't move out'. It's a nonsensical suggestion. What you propose is basically an nationalisation of private firms (because even if you gave them to the private market again, they still would be hold to these national interests). We've seen how successful communism and socialism was, where they nationalised private companies (hint: it didn't turn out well).
"Of course I do. And if you want to have a company in India, producing something to sell in India, be my guest. And if you want to sell your indian stuff in my country, pay your taxes."
Wait. So you don't only want to tax them where they are located, but also where they sell their goods? And you mean more than just VAT (because that's already the case now)? How would you tax a company (on itself, directly) that isn't bound to your territory? By imposing extra taxes on goods that are imported from that company? That's called protectionism. Besides, what kind of bureaucracy wouldn't you need to keep tabs on which company sells what where and to whom and whether or when (because it may change day to day) they have an office in your country and already are or will be taxed, and forbid and stop all goods that might be not in order at the border, which also could change from date to another? Also, that would not only mean you're prone to nationalise or 'seize' assets of someone else ( a private person or entity), you'd also impose a total control of the market, and go for a drastic form of protectionism (otherwise, you couldn't stop people from buying abroad if they want to, obviously). This will never work in the long run - as has been proven by history (or do you know any country who did both things and still was better off than what we have now in the West?), but worse, it's even catastrophic in the short run.
Who the heck would want, as a private investor, invest in a country which can seize your property whenever they feel you're not paying enough? Who would want to *stay* in such a country? You say: 'seize it before they realise it', but apart from that doubtful premise (they'll know pretty fast, rest assured), you can only do that ONCE, if ever. For reference, look at what happened after governments seized companies in socialist countries where they did try that, like in the past with some Latin-American countries. The uncertainty that you'll introduce by doing such a thing would guarantee that your economy would take a nose-dive, and this would be the case as long as one lives in a mondial market-orientated, neo-liberal liberal system (which we do). For your proposal to work, one would need a dictatorial regime with full control of the economy, preferably on a planet-wide scale.
What you suggest is just not realistic. And I think you know that as well. It's something you *want* and ideologically hope for, but I think deep down you know it's unrealistic. Alas, if one wants to actually implement an UBI, one is not going to be able to sustain it with unrealistic wishful thinking. In practise, what you propose will never happen (and it wouldn't be a good thing too, within our free market system). So it's not realistic to claim it would support an UBI. I'm talking now about a *realistic* proposal to introduce an UBI. Advocating a form of communism, arresting the rich, or seizing property *before* the law is passed, is just asinine. (And you would *need* to do it that way, because if you give them the time to see the law coming into effect, they'll bail out again, of course).
Closing the loopholes is all good and well, and certainly you'll have some illegal ones that can be closed, but let's not forget that a great part of it is not due to loopholes, but simply because the government itself makes deals with them, giving them incentives in trying to keep them. M
That wasn't my point. I didn't say no money is or was going to flow out now, I just said you can't recuperate 100% of your money, and thus *what you said*, namely that people will buy stuff and the money of that immediately goes back to the government IS UNTRUE. God damn, you're obnoxiously obtuse.
Only because you put words into my mouth. Some money will come back immediately. All of it will come back eventually, either through longer circles (purchase-loan-purchase-taxes) or through the creation of additional wealth because people start businesses, or create art, or don't have to commit crimes for a living anymore (reduced costs of police, courts and prisons) and many other effects.
Of course if you look at a very simplified model where you ignore any and all side-effects, you can say "money leaves the country, so it will go bancrupt, q.e.d." but you would have to close your eyes quite a lot.
Point is, people order things increasingly from abroad, and if you products and services are more expensive in your country than elsewhere, you'll loose loads of money that way.
Yes, true. Some money will leave the country this way. Time will tell if it's a devastating factor or not. Money also leaves the country in many other ways, for example migrants sending money home to their families, or investments into foreign companies, etc. etc. - I don't have numbers to estimate which of these factors is the largest. Do you?
But what I am saying is that this is already happening, so how is it possibly an argument against basic income?
Did I say I was against basic income? While I have my doubts about the feasibility of financing of an UBI, I did not say I was inherently against it. One just has to be realistic about it, and neither the papers on UBI give a clear answer to this, nor do answers like 'the money will come from the top' bring anything worthwhile (in a pragmatic sense) to the table.
What I DID say was this:
"I think the point of the parent poster was that the "This money will come back to the government in no time." in the post (to which he responded) is wrong."
That's what I said in the original post of this debate. And I still stand with that, and, apparently, you do too, now - at least to some extend. yur now focussing on the semantics of it, arguing about 'all' money or 'some' money, arguing about 'immediately' or 'at the long run', but what you actually said was wrong.
ALL have it very hard to maintain their welfare system. And with sharply rising costs due to an ageing populace, immigrants that can use the benefits without having contributed to it before, and rising costs in healthcare, it's rather obvious none of them will be able to maintain their current system.
Shows how little you know. Yes, the systems are breaking, because - I already explained. And immigrants are actually beneficial, especially to the pension system, because few old people immigrate, young people pay into the pension fund, and they have more children then europeans. That might not sit well with some political orientations, but looking just at the pension system, it's great.
It's also short-sighted. I think it's rather you how shows that you know little about it. The mess we're in now, is entirely due to using the same rationale as you do now. When the baby-boom happened in the 60ies, some economists were saying the exact same thing: "Oh, but that's *great*; that means all those children will pay for the pension fund of those that came before, so it will be a boon to the pension system." And so it was, until 65 years later, when all THOSE children have to have a pension. Since you can't have a continuous exponential rate at which you can bear children - overpopulation, you know - you can't keep having MORE children to support all the ones that came before you. Because those will need more too. And th
If you say you recuperate 20% (btw, you do understand one can directly buy goods abroad by internet, I suppose? And thus, forgo 'local shops', and only leave the distribution-services (partly) as coming 'back into the economy'?) But regardless, saying 20% comes back is saying 80% does not come back.
No, it's saying that 20% comes back to the government immediately. Of the shop price of an electronics item, a good estimate is that 50% goes to the manufacturer. The rest is taxes, shop profit, logistics and such. 50% leaving the country is a more honest estimate (and very few people order their stuff at Alibaba, most will use a local Internet shop).
But that money would leave the country if people get their income from a basic income, or from a salary, or from unemployment money. It's not like when you introduce a basic income, suddenly lots of money will flow out of the country that didn't before. To make a more honest estimate, we should only calculate the difference.
That wasn't my point. I didn't say no money is or was going to flow out now, I just said you can't recuperate 100% of your money, and thus *what you said*, namely that people will buy stuff and the money of that immediately goes back to the government IS UNTRUE. God damn, you're obnoxiously obtuse.
Also, I do not agree with your assessment it's only in the fringe that people order on the internet and buy abroad. In fact, it's one of the most rapidly rising behaviour of the last years (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/newsbysector/retailandconsumer/11657830/Online-shopping-to-grow-by-320bn-in-three-years.html). Your claim that it's mainly 'the local internet shop' is not substantiated and is blind for the current trend. All else being equal, people will buy wherever it's cheapest. And that usually isn't where the wages and taxes are the highest. Hence, they'll buy in neighbouring countries if it's cheaper there, and even in China, the USA, etc. if it's there (only thing holding that back is the taxes/customs, but once there is a trade-agrreement, that vanishes too). Point is, people order things increasingly from abroad, and if you products and services are more expensive in your country than elsewhere, you'll loose loads of money that way.
That money isn't coming back 'immediately', and it won't be, as long as your in a bad position of competition. And countries who have lower taxes and lower labour cost obviously have an advantage to those that don't.
This is all 101 economics; I don't see why I have to spell out the obvious.
And let me reiterate: no, I don't have to look *at the difference*. Nowhere did I say 'the rich' or 'the unemployed' didn't or don't buy things abroad, and thus money is lost that way. I'm just saying YOUR CLAIM, that whatever people buy, the money is flowing right back to the government IS FALSE. Nothing more, nothing less. It means that *any* argument which is based on the assumption that is does, is incorrect too.
in the EU most welfare-systems already are reeling and becoming unmaintainable, even when pouring large sums in it
That is bullshit. The system I have a bit of knowledge about is the german pension system, and it could have very well survived with minor restructuring. It was intentionally sabotaged by two generations of politicians, because the insurance industry wanted in on the gig. So it was a) discussed to death and b) money in the pension fund was used for other purposes until the system actually did hit a crisis. But that crisis was manufactured so that insurance companies could sell you additional pension funds (with tax benefits). Investing the same amount of taxes into the pension fund directly would have easily covered the gaps.
That is why I am so very critical about these "oh, it can't work" criticism, usually coming from people with an interest in not having it work.
Oh, and also: If we worry about money leaving the country, we should arrest all the
For example a professor of economy and former finance minister, who said that giving people a basic income will allow a lot of them to start their own business, which they did not so far for fear of failing and ending up with nothing. Many people stay in regular jobs for that reason."
That was a rhetorical question. It was meant to be understood as: "You answer with something that has no relevance on the topic I raised in my comment." No doubt you have myriads of people claiming different things on different topics, but that doesn't mean it answers the question raised in this post. As an analogy, it's like I would ask: "Is there any proof cancer can be treated with ultra-sound", and you answer with: "Chemotherapy has many examples of successfully treating cancers." To which I then ask: "Who was talking about chemotherapy?", to which you in turn answer with: "Well, this and that professor talks extensively about how chemotherapy helps in combating cancer."
Yes, well... That misses the issue entirely, doesn't it? Because that wasn't the point, neither of my original remark, nor of the question.
Money going out (to another) is NOT an investment in ones' own country, so it has no relevance whatsoever in regard to the topic raised.
"To which I say: he is right. People WILL buy things from abroad, and thus it's impossible that all the money comes back - certainly not if you have a trade deficit.
Yes, they will buy things from abroad. Often in local shops (20% already recovered), which pay salaries to their local sales people and contract other local busineses (for cleaning, telecommunication, logistics, etc.) where more jobs are paid from this money. I said "money that immediately goes back", I did not use "all" and "immediately" in the same sentence."
Ah, we're into semantics, now, I see. To be exact, you said: "But the 99.9%, what will they do? Buy better furniture, a new TV, a new iPhone, a new car. Money that immediately goes back into the economy, creates jobs and thus more wealth."
It is clearly implied here, that the money OF the buying of better furniture, a TV, etc. is the same money *that* immediately comes back into the economy. As I've said, and you now seem to agree, this is not, or at least not fully, true. If you say you recuperate 20% (btw, you do understand one can directly buy goods abroad by internet, I suppose? And thus, forgo 'local shops', and only leave the distribution-services (partly) as coming 'back into the economy'?) But regardless, saying 20% comes back is saying 80% does not come back. That still means your economy is LOOSING money, only a bit slower if it's 80% instead of 100%. It doesn't solve the problem, thus. Since that 80% of the money does not immediately go back into the economy. Which means less and less jobs are created, and thus less wealth is being created. Which means less taxes. Which means it's incorrect to state "This money will come back to the government in no time."
Let's finally agree on this. This debate has been going on for far too long just to establish the obvious fact that that particular statement, as it's presented in that comment, is incorrect. It also means that the reasoning which was based on this argument, needs another, preferably better, argument to substantiate it.
I'm actually not inherently adverse towards an UBI that replaces all other benefit-systems we have today. It could be worthwhile to try it out. I only deplore the severe lack of any concrete number-crunching on the actual financial side if one were to implement a national-wide UBI. None of the papers I read so far goes into that in any depth. The current fact is, in the EU most welfare-systems already are reeling and becoming unmaintainable, even when pouring large sums in it. An UBI, by its very nature - since it would give an income to the working class that has no benefits now - would cost considerably more. Since we can't manage the costs already as it is, how exactly is one going to sponsor it, thu
"Ah, the standard neocon bullshit strawman. The rich flee abroad for a million reasons, most of them having nothing to do with taxes."
France with his 'tax for the rich' prove this is not the case. that is to say, sure, there may be other reasons they flee, but surely one major reason is, htat if you tax them too much (certainly on their personal wealth), they WILL go away.
When the rich fled from France to Belgium (and even Russia), they did NOT do it because the people were friendlier or the weather better, they did it because the law/tax for the rich was introduced. I feel you are ignoring reality if you claim otherwise.
In any case, money goes outside the country.
As for the rest:
Basically you're refuting everything with saying 'wealth creation effect'. It should be noted that handwaving that term does not constitute some magical properties. And you do seem to to argue things that have no relevance to the issue at hand. Investments cause wealth creation? Who was talking about investments? I think your loosing site of the original point of contestation due to your ideological preferences. Let me recap. This was the original contention the parent poster responded to:
""But the 99.9%, what will they do? Buy better furniture, a new TV, a new iPhone, a new car. Money that immediately goes back into the economy, creates jobs and thus more wealth. Wealth that is taxed. This money will come back to the government in no time.
Except they'll buy Swedish furniture, a Korean TV, an American iPhone and a Japanese car (using imported fuel), so half of that money is drained from the economy."
To which I say: he is right. People WILL buy things from abroad, and thus it's impossible that all the money comes back - certainly not if you have a trade deficit.
All your theories and your promotion of your viewpoint on wealth distribution has nothing to do with it; it's just that that specific claim 'Money that immediately goes back into the economy' is clearly false. If you pay for products being made elsewhere, it obviously doesn't mean you are investing in your own country. At most it will lead to investments where the production is being done. It also won't create jobs here; at most it will create jobs *there*. And thus, there is no 'more wealth' being created here, but less. Ergo, the money will NOT flow immediately back to into the economy. It logically follows from the same premise the original poster used himself; it's just that he didn't think it through.
This: http://frac.org/initiatives/am... is NOT a peer-reviewed study with any of the data. Maybe your contention is that it'(s based on such a paper which is susbtantiated with the necessary data, but what is on that page on itself clearly isn't.
This: http://www.basicincomecanada.o... [basicincomecanada.org] does contain papers, of which I already had read 4 prior to you giving me the link. All failed to answer my exact question, however, and a cursory look at the others (granted, I've not read them all) shows that most of them are pertaining to the local experiments we already spoke about. I'm not sure if you are aware what would be an adequate response to my question would be, but it's NOT detailing those experiments and the claims of their dioto benefits. My question pertains to this: if you implement a national-wide UBI, who is going to pay for it and in what matter - susbtantiated by actual numbers and calculations of how this would be sponsored.
These papers, as far as I can see, do NOT answer this, and that's because even when they go into the finances that made them possible, it's clear who made it possible and where the monetary support to implement it came from: from the government/state. As said before, this is hardly surprising, and seen the local aspect of the experiments versus the wealth of an entire nation, it is no wonder it doesn't show any problems concerning the financing of such small UBI-experiments.
My question is: how will it be paid for if you apply A NATIONAL UBI? clearly, such a thing will be orders of magnitudes bigger, which means you can not just use your ordinary taxes an system as it is now, and still expect to be able to pay for it. NONE of the papers address this particular issue with any concrete numbers. At least as far as I've seen - but if I'm wrong in this, please point out the papers you think actually do , concerning this specific question of mine.
I'm always wondering why so many people, when being asked a specific question, think a buckload of links which do not deal with the question asked is the answer. Don't get me wrong: I'm grateful for the links, since they seem at least somewhat better than the average articles on UBI, but That doesn't mean they are all relevant to the specific objection I raised. Take "A wider lens: an analysis of Kesselman’s view of a basic income" for instance. Since I haven't read it, I took the time reading it completely - but to no avail for an answer to my question. It's full of claims of how wonderful such a system would be for the people, it has very little substantiation of facts and numbers - I mean, it just doesn't, sorry - and nowhere is being explained where a national-wide UBI which would cost tens of billions would be paid by. He even seems to claim things like invalidity would get additional benefits on top of the UBI, so it would make things even more expensive.
Now, I'm not making making a definite judgement on all of what is claimed there. It might well be that it's the best thing since sliced bread. But it doesn't answer the question: who's going to pay for it. Can we agree on that?
This: http://www.degruyter.com/view/... [degruyter.com] is a mere summary, which does no good in hinting at an adequate answer neither. The rest is behind a paid wall, and I'm not going to pay for it. In essence, it's not a substantiation of what you said on itself, thus. Do you imply that it is? Are you confirming the paper itself gives a direct answer to my questions? Did you read that paper yourself? In that case, could you please simply give the answer to my question yourself? Because the summary on itself - which it linked to - is pretty worthless in this regard, I'm sure you agree. The same goes for many of the sublinks of your other link. "Basic Income: Econ
It could be, that your food-stamp example is all very well in stimulating a 'ripple effect' on the economy (do note that link does NOT provide the actual numbers neither though; in which way is this 'ripple effect being measured, how did they measure it, what procedure did they follow, what were the variables and how did they check for it, etc.) I'm asking, because this is clearly a claim made by the frac itself (Food Research and Action Center), so it would rather be surprising if they would say their efforts are in vein, now wouldn't it? Not saying they ARE misrepresenting things, only that it isn't an academic paper, nor do they provide the necessary data themselves to make a neutral analysis of it.
But this is all besides the point. I wasn't talking about foodstamps or their ripple effect. I'm asking - and let me spell it out once again: WHO is going to pay for the UBI. Saying 'oh, it will give ripple effects' is NOT answering the question. You introduce an UBI. You have to pay for it. You have to pay for it, BEFORE any ripple effects will demonstrate itself (assuming those will actually be noticeable to begin with). Again, I'm asking you: who is going to pay for it?
If you say 'the top' again, please read my remarks about that in my former post. How are you going to remedy the obvious problems I raised against it?
"The richer you are, the more likely you are to bring the money outside the country. Giving everyone a few bucks or giving the super-rich tax cuts - which you think is more likely to keep money inside the country?"
Well, I partially agree that if you tax the rich too much, they're much more prone to flee abroad.
But that doesn't resolve the issue.
What you're saying is: money is getting lost more slowly by the poor than by the rich. Even if one would take that as granted, it still doesn't solve the problem money nevertheless gets exported out of the country and that one can't recuperate 100% of you gave to your citizens (as I said), etc. Which, in turn, still means "This money will come back to the government in no time." is still wrong. I mean; claiming that one bleeds to death faster if a major artery is broken instead of normal arteries may well be, but it still amounts to the same thing: death by bloodloss.
The point here is, that some of your money is ALWAYS going to dissipate, so you can't endlessly recycle the same money because you LOSE money, and thus, the money you lose will not 'come back to the government in no time'. Ergo: the original poster was wrong in that assertion.
"None of the experiments on basic income that were run to date showed evidence of an imperishing the country effect. Where you get this idea and is it backed up by any evidence?"
I know of only three experiments that effectively 'did' have a go on an UBI. All of which would be unable to tell anything about impoverishment, because they were too small-scale to actually be able to demonstrate such an effect. They were mostly local experiments (city-wide at best), not national ones. Please link to any other experiments you know of that were nationally-wide, and I'll look at the data there. Take the one of the Canadian experiment in the 70ies with the small town of Dauphin. Now, that clearly got sponsored/paid for with taxpayers money on the national level. Do you really expect to see a measurable decline of the GNP or overall national income or wealth because that whole country had to support a small town for four years for its UBI-experiment? Of course not! You couldn't do that, even if you tried to measure it, and they didn't try.
However, if you implement the same UBI nationally, it speaks for itself the effect would be hugely and drastically different (aka, several orders of magnitude worse in costs), and you couldn't just pay it without the beating of an eyelash like one could now. All the experiments were far too small to make even a dent in the GNP of the country that was sponsoring it, nor were they even trying to measure such a thing.
And I'm not getting your 'back-up of evidence'. It's self-evident, isn't it? If I have 20 euro, and I spend part of it which never gets back in my pocket, I have become poorer than I was before. If a country spends 20 billion on his citizens and part of that never returns to that country, it has become poorer. It's the most basic of all logical reasonings. Yes, you would still be able to be or become richer then before if your income would augment, but that's why I talked about trade-deficits. Contrary to popular belief, not everyone can be a winner (at least, not if you look at the netto gain you/a country got).
"Yes, but if you are worried about that, then you should already be running around, screaming. And despite popular opinion, a lot of the trade deficit is not with China, but with other EU countries, for example. Germany especially holds a lot of the trade deficit of other EU nations (and, in fact, a larger account balance than China, globally). The Netherlands and, surprise, Switzerland, are high on that list as well. Now since we are talking about Switzerland here, trade deficit is not among their chief concerns."
Again, what has that to do with it? Whether it already is a problem or not worth screaming about is not the issue here. That it IS a problem, is. Whether it's with China or the EU or the US isn't the point neither; that t
Firstly, that doesn't address *any* of the points I raised. It's just yet another unsubstantiated claim.
Secondly, what would be 'the top'? Note that research has already demonstrated that almost everyone agrees that the 'rich' have to redistribute their wealth more *but everyone thinks the ones earning more than themselves are 'the rich'*.
Thirdly, what you say is nowhere substantiated by any data that actually proves this too. It seems highly unlikely even, since it would totally depend on what the person spends it on. If you argue it would just 'augment spending and thus create wealth by augmenting consumption' I don't see why someone should have the right to spend more from money someone else earned. Redistribute wealth enough, and you all get equal... but equally poor. If you don't give incentives to people to become rich, but always redistribute their wealth to the poor, you basically get the disaster that communism has shown us.
Fourthly, let's say you make a definition of 'the top' being the extremely rich, with, say, 100 million dollars (arbitrarily choosen, of course). How, exactly, are you going to force them to redistribute their wealth by a large margin? Note that France tried to do exactly this, with their tax for the rich, and they failed miserably. Because the result was, that the very rich just moved elsewhere, in another country if they had to, avoiding the tax. After less than one year, the law/tax was revoked and scrapped, because it made France get *less* tax-income instead of more. And no, you can't forbid people to live abroad, in a free country.
Idem with large international companies, btw: tax them too much, and they'll just move to other places with a more lenient tax-system.
So, what's left? You can't tax the poor, because they have nothing. And you can't tax the rich, because they just move away.
I know! The middle-class! Those still have some money, yet are not wealthy enough to afford moving to another country. The result being, it's always the middle-class that squeezed out. Do that enough, and you have no middle class left, and your populace only exist of a mass of dirt poor and superrich. And that's exactly what is happening all over the world. It's not only that 'the divide' gets wider, it's also the case the middle-class is slowly disappearing in the West.
The UBI will just be the same as any other benfit-program in this respect; it needs to be paid, and someone has to pay for it, and it will be the middle-class again.
So, unless it's explicitly explained and supported with data who exactly is going to be able to pay for such a system - and none of the papers on UBI thusfar does that - I'm extremely sceptical.
Don't give me platitudes. Show me how much it'll cost, who's going to pay for it *exactly*, and how you're going to effectively get that money, in a realistic way. With numbers, so it can be analysed on the factual data given. All the rest is idle talk, and talk is cheap.
It says: "Once benefits replacement is used as the basis for financing a GI, the money problem becomes manageable"
But that doesn't explain anything. For starters, it presumes the costs of both will be the same, for the same gain. This is highly doubtful. In my country, there is a potential workforce of around 6 million of a total populace of 11 million. Of those, 3,1 million work. Which means 2,9 million are sustained by those 3 million, with taxes to cover for the benefits.
Now, imagine you implement a system like that of Swiss or similar UIB, where EVERYONE gets an income. This means, that not 2,9 million, but 11 million needs to get a benefit...which means it needs to be more than TRIPLED. So how the hell are you going to use 'benefits replacement' as the basis for financing a GI that cost trice as much??! It doesn't make any sense. Well, unless one gives far less benefits per person, but then what's the point, since you're going far under the minimum living standards, then.
Furthermore, I realise they take the US as their example, but in an EU context, where the current benefits and welfare-system is already unmaintainable as it is, it makes even less sense. EVEN if one could pay for it by 'replacing' the current system (which one can't, since it would triple in price), it still would bork, since the current costs are not possible to maintain. At least without any new taxes, and we're already one of the most heavily taxed countries in the world.
But that would be the only viable option: to drastically augment the taxes, so everyone could get a decent universal income. But hen...where are those taxes coming from? Well, the majority comes from... taxes on labour (at least in the EU). So that would effectively mean that those who still *would* work, are far more heavily taxed on their income (at least, the income they earn above the UIB). But...why the heck would anyone even do the trouble of working when they pay you get from it is taxed at 85%?
As said: it doesn't make logical sense.
And it's also typical of the proponents of those systems: they never actually give you the cyphers and numbers. It's full of *statements* and *claims* (in particular about all the hypothesised savings), but without any actual substantiation. And they're particularly vague as who will actually pay for it with how much - let alone they show us any calculation we can analyse. As said, the most they say about it is "Once benefits replacement is used as the basis for financing a GI, the money problem becomes manageable", which is not only pretty contentious to claim without actual anything substantiating it, but is also highly unlikely, as demonstrated above, if one is talking about a truly universal (aka, for all citizens) GI system when applied in a EU context.
While the parent poster is correct that most of the jobs in the West are currently 'taken over' by cheap(er) workforces in China etc., ultimately that's only a short term thing.
Meanwhile, robotics and automation is continuing, ALSO in China. In the long term, it's easy to see where this is going, if one remains logical. At some point, even the cheapest human worker can't compete (in costs) with robots. At that point, they will ALL be replaced.
Companies don't care whether it are humans or robots that allow them to maximise their profit; they just take the cheapest and most cost-effective route. However you turn it, that will be machines, not humans, in the long run. It'll just take a bit longer for that threshold to be broken with $300 Chinese workers than with $1500 EU workers, but eventually it'll get there too.
I think the point of the parent poster was that the "This money will come back to the government in no time." in the post (to which he responded) is wrong.
And it is. There is no way to 'recuperate' 100% of the money you gave away to your citizens. Some of it invariably will go outside your country. Which means, the total amount of money will get less, and thus, one can not keep recycling it indefinitely, which in turn means, *someone* has to pay for it. Unless you keep just printing money indefinitely. But we all know where that is going...
Fact is, a fairly portion of the money will NOT go 'immediately back into the economy'. Sure, it doesn't leave the 'global economy', but that's a small comfort, when it's your region (aka country) that is getting impoverished while those where the money flows to get richer. I mean, sure, it might be all swell and good for the poor Chinese worker, but it still means you(r country) get(s) poorer.
Now, I can imagine you argue: that's the same for other countries too. But you did hear of trade deficits, no? Basically, while all countries deal and trade with eachother, and money and goods will be transferred between them, in the end, some countries will have a net positive balance, and some a net negative. The EU invariably has the tendency to be on the negative side, because of our high labor costs. Sometimes with a considerable difference. Point is, for those 'loosing' countries - and let's face it, we in the EU can't compete with China because we're just too expensive - having 99,9% of our populace 'spend money' will NOT mean all that money can be brought back in the economy. Ergo, it will also not continue to 'create jobs and wealth'. Which means you will get less and less taxes on that wealth, since it's decreasing.
So the whole reasoning of the original poster breaks down, and that was the point the parent poster was making.
What *are* you talking about? Please note that I'm responding to the parent poster who claimed rent was only/10th of the income. If you use *your* calculator, I'm sure it'll indicate that 1/10th is not 40%, and that 1/10th of 1500 is, indeed, 150.
And my point was; that's complete BS, since in most cases, if you take average rents and incomes in Europe, it will be far more than that, and usually surpass even 40% if you want to rent a house as a single.
I'm not sure what you tried to make as a point, though.
Slashdot Mirror
Keeping with traditional 'wisdom' of entangled particles (there has been given a link which cast some doubt on this), the reason why what you say doesn't transfer information is as follows:
Say the answer is yes. You open the box with yes. It automatically collapses the wavefront, making the particle determined to a +1 or -1, whatever. You have no control over whether it's +1 or -1, however; it happens fully randomly. So you can't impart info directly that way, agreed?
But, you say, that doesn't matter, since it's the 'yes' box with the qubit that is of importance, and you know that means 'yes'. But... how can the folks back at Earth know? If they open the yes box, they'll see a +1 or a -1. But if they open the no-box, they'll see a +1 or -1 as well. That's because the wavefront collapses in both cases *regardless* of who measured it (you at 20 lightyears, or the folks at home). So the only thing you see, is a +1 or -1 in both boxes, and you can't know if it's there because YOU measured it and caused the wavefront to collapse, or whether it's due to THEIR measurement. In both cases, as soon as anyone measures it, you get a random outcome. And if you don't measure it, you don't know if 'the other side' has changed it or not.
It's the *measuring* that makes it collapse in a random way, whomever observes the state of the qubit. And you can't get the state of the qubit *before* you observed and measured it, and you can't know if it's there because *you* measured it, or *they* did. Basically, the only thing you know is, if you measure a +1, they'll have a -1. But that doesn't help anything in conveying any information, since it's randomly determined.
Now, there's been a link to a paper which claims it is possible to measure whether a qubit is determined or undetermined *without* collapsing the wavefront. Obviously, that would change things. If true. But if not, it's easy to see with my explanation why you wouldn't get any info out of it.
Someone more able to work in the detail of QM should comment.
Off the top of my head: I guess this is saying that if when they measure in this manner the result comes out in a certain way they know the photon still has an un-collapsed wave function? Presumably if it had a definite state it would be either vertically or horizontally polarised ? I'm still not sure that the wave function of the 'second' particle will actually show locally as having collapsed just because the 'first' particle was measured. It's just that when you perform a full measurement you'll get the complementary value.
I don't think it actually claims it can measure *what* determined state it is in (what kind of polarisation has taken place). Because in that case, you can't but have a collapsed wavefront, since you actually determined the exact state of the particle itself.
What they're saying is that they can determine *whether* or not a qubit has an undetermined or determined state (without saying anything more about the determined state, thus).
They say they can measure whether it's 'set', or whether it's 'not set', without collapsing it. And, following logic, that alone would be enough to impart some information, indeed. Because if one had 100 individual qubits that are supposed to be in an undetermined state, yet when you measure it at Alpha Centauri (without the wave-function being collapsed), and it would turn out some of them were undetermined, but some aren't anymore (because of polarisation of the entangled qubits deliberately done on Earth), you could create a pattern that sends information. Even if there were random fluctuations individually, you could still filter it out statistically.
IF true, it should be possible, in principle, to have FTL communication. Since that is no small matter, and would earn you a nobel-prize, it's strange to see no paper dealing with this, even after 3 years since its publication...
One of the core tenets was exactly that; that indeterminate states are observationally indistinguishable from determinate states, until it actually got observed, in which case the wavefront collapses in a random way (and thus, no information could be retrieved by it).
However, it seems there is a paper claiming one can measure the (polarisation) state of a qubit without collapsing the wavefront. If this turns out to be true, in principle, it would be possible to get information from the state of that wavefront (to be exact, whether or not it was determined or not - not *how* it was polarised/determined). Logic dictates that, if true, it would be possible to have a set-up where you have several qubits that are originally in an undetermined state, and then you look at each of them if they're still undetermined 10 lightyears away, and create a pattern (and thus info) that way. Even with some random fluctuation in wavefront-collapses, it should be possible to statistically retrieve info out of it.
IF it's true. If not, then it's exactly as I said. And in that case, your last sentence makes no sense, since if the state has been determined, the particle will of course not 'pretend' anymore to be in an indeterminate state. Only, since it's not possible to measure it without determining it (which the paper disputes now), and since the determination is random, it follows no information can be retrieved from it.
To be precise, it's a verbose way of acknowledging I *could* be wrong. ;-)
Then again, if everyone would be willing to do the same thing on slashdot, debates would considerable improve around here. :-p
The only thing I find strange, seen the dramatic implications of it, is that there seems to be no paper who has tried it out and confirmed FTL communication. I'm sure it would have been world-news and we'd all heard about it, if it was the case. And it's been 3 years since that paper...
Thus, I'm leaving it open for now, but that doesn't change the logic behind it that, if confirmed, the major objection I raised in my particular parent post, has become largely void.
I'm actually not naively endorsing it, nor do I find it extremely likely, and thus I would like to see this paper confirmed by other experiments, especially in an FTL communication set-up, but facts are facts, and IF it would turn out to be true that you can measure a state of a qubit without destroying the wavefront, in principle, you could get information across. It's...well... it's the logical consequence of it, isn't it? Can't help it.
On the other hand, if I were proven wrong and FTL communication were possible, it's actually opening up a lot of possibilities. I'm not one to speculate into fantasies too much, but once you can have instant two-way--communication, it should also be possible, in principle, to, say, have a real-time experience on another planet with a robot-avatar you send to an extra-terrestrial planet before. (presuming you can live enough to wait out the time it needs to get there, so maybe Mars would be a better goal).
Anyway, first things first. I would like to see it confirmed or refuted.
Hmm. Actually I got a link by a poster here, which is pretty interesting and deals with exactly that:
https://www.sciencedaily.com/r...
Now... the whole thing of me saying it's impossible is based on the assumption that you can't measure a qubit directly without destroying the wavefront. Which, while not a 'law' of physics, was pretty much a core tenet. If that doesn't hold anymore, the principle objection to FTL communication is gone too (I've made another post explaining why, but I'm sure you can see and realise this yourself too).
I too, want to see it repeated and verified first as well, though. :-)
IF it's confirmed, it should be relatively easy to test if it's also applicable and suited for FTL communication. I'm rather sceptical as of yet, but in principle, if the paper is right, I'm forced to re-evaluate my stance on FTL, at least on the grounds that I used (there could be other reasons).
The only thing I find a bit surprising is, if the paper is correct - and it's from 2013 I believe - why no-one has tried out the obvious FTL implications of it. (And if they were successful, I'm sure we'd heard about it).
I find it...unlikely... but not to the same degree as the EM-drive being an actual reactionless drive. ;-)
If you have any thoughts on this matter, feel free to share them.
Amen! ;-)
I would say you're partially right. Journeying on itself can be fun. However, at a certain point you have to draw the line. For instance, claims without (scientific) proof about subjects that we already know of that are impossible (in the sense that it breaks basic laws we otherwise already would have measured and observed it long ago, if true), is a futile endeavour. It becomes the realm of pseudo-science, and that does more damage to science than anything else. That's why claims like that of the EM-drive, that violates CoE and CoM by simply bouncing microwaves around in itself as a closed compartment, is bullocks. If a microwave-oven (which it is, basically) could violate it that easily, without it leaving normal physics we already know of, then we would already have observed that through myriads of other experiments long ago.
That said, quantum entanglement is less well understood. It doesn't mean 'everything' is possible as some seem to believe, but the boundaries are more unclear. The statement that FTL communication is impossible is only true as far as the wavefunction can not be measured without collapsing it. Which has always thought to be the case, but I just got a link here to a paper which claims it succeeded in measuring a property (namely being polarised or not) without collapsing the wavefront. Which would make FTL communication rather a technical problem rather than breaking any physical law (not that it was defined as such, but it used to be regarded as pretty well established). However, I have little doubt that anything which is a mere *technical* obstacle, humanity can overcome, eventually.
Point is, if that paper is correct and it can be falsified and confirmed, it should be possible to set up a system to see if FTL isn't feasible afterall. Thus, science knows no absolutes, as you say. :-)
In any case, lets be sceptical until more experiments confirm or refute the claims of that paper.
I'll grant you that is an interesting read. They're basically saying they can measure a wavefunction and yet it doesn't collapse by the measurement of it. (To be precise, they measure a property through the wave-function, namely if it's polarised or not.) It doesn't say they could measure what kind of polarisation had taken place, only that it did or didn't. So it doesn't denote that once it is 'set' in a state, it's not random anymore (you can't choose in front *how* it would be polarised, without collapsing the wavefront). So what I said still stands. But, regardless, it does change the game, agreed. Because they say they can measure whether it's 'set', or whether it's not 'set', without collapsing it.
And, following logic, that alone would be enough to impart some information, indeed. Because if one had 100 individual qubits that are supposed to be in an undetermined state, yet when you measure it at Alpha Centauri (without the wave-function being collapsed), it would turn out some of them were undetermined, but some aren't anymore (because of polarisation of the entangled qubits done on Earth), you could create a pattern that sends information. Even if there were random fluctuations individually, you could still filter it out statistically.
Hmm. Is there any link/paper that handles FTL communication through this particular method? It seems to me, if that article is right, that it would be relatively easy to establish if it actually can be used for FTL communication*. I would have presumed someone would have done it already...(?) If so, I would welcome a link to such a paper.
*Note that the NASA experiment does not do that; as far as I've understood, they just want to maximise the information of photons send to the spacecraft through entanglement. But the information send is still at the speed of light, not FTL.
Well... to be fair, we would be akin to gods to the creatures we simulated and are living in our simulation.
We simply would not be gods to our contemporary peers in our own universe.
That's all fine and dandy, but why did it have to be The Sims and not Skyrim? :-(
Sometimes, life feels like Flappy the bird, even...
Well...when fucking or being fucked, there is always some entanglement involved...
I used to think this was an option too, but the more I read about it, the more it became obvious that it wouldn't work. This is because, while you would easily and immediately have an influence on the paired quantumdot at Earth, even if you were 10 lightyears away, there is no way to direct or guide to any particular state in front. Meaning, the moment to interact with your entangled electron or photon, it would 'set' its state, but in a random way.
So the information encoded in entanglement is only extractable when you look at correlations between measurements on both the entangled systems. So to access that correlation information, you would need communication anyway, and that communication could not be FTL. If you only look at either system, but not the other, then you need no such communication, but you also can extract no information from the entanglement. This is actually a good thing, because much of science is done by ignoring entanglements, and the reason we get away with that is the information we are ignoring cannot interfere with our interpretation of the results of our experiment.
Suppose we split up two qubits in an entangled |00+|11state, where we've established that Alice is going to measure two overlapping bell curves with their double-slit experiment.Suppose Bob likes wavy interference patterns. The rules of quantum mechanics allow Bob to do, on his qubit, any unitary transformation like |0|112|0+12|112|012|1.
This takes our state to:
14|00+14|01+14|1014|11
Now supposing that Bob measures his qubit as 0 or 1, then Alice must measure either the wavy interference patterns 12|f0(x)+f1(x)|2 or 12|f0(x)f1(x)|2.
Bob can thereby instantaneously change, from a quantum perspective, what the outcomes of Alice's measurement are going to be.
Alice's wavefunction must change instantaneously and might even change retroactively: she may have already measured her qubit before Bob does this unitary transformation and measurement: nevertheless, to satisfy the predictions of quantum mechanics, her measurements must be consistent with Bob's manipulations. But that can't send messages. Because this thing that Bob has done is not directly visible to Alice. That's for a couple of reasons, the first being that this only generates one photon of results on the double-slit screen, which isn't enough to see the pattern! But suppose we measure lots and lots of these qubits to try and see the pattern: then the problem is that Alice doesn't know which ones Bob measured as 0 or which ones Bob measured as 1. Since there was a 50/50 chance of Bob getting either, what Alice sees is therefore:
14|f0(x)+f1(x)|2+14|f0(x)f1(x)|2=12|f0(x)|2+12|f1(x)|2.
Alice therefore still measures two overlapping bell curves, overall!
Where are the interference patterns?! That is very simple: when Bob and Alice compare their measurements in the first case, Bob's 0-measurement can be used to "filter" Alice's patterns into 12|f0(x)|2,
the bell curve of photons which passed through only the first slit, and his 1-measurement filters the results to give 12|f1(x)|2,
Bob's transformation then changes how he can filter Alice's patterns: Alice's overlapping bell curves are now made up of the ones he measured 0
for, which describe one wavy pattern, and the ones he measured 1 for, which describe the other wavy pattern, and they add up into the non-wavy pattern.
"For a state who wants to do something, there's little to stop it. If you really have the will. Heck, if you want to play hardball, you can tell the super-rich to pay their taxes or you will take their companies."
That's in the same line as 'arrest all the rich people so they can't move out'. It's a nonsensical suggestion. What you propose is basically an nationalisation of private firms (because even if you gave them to the private market again, they still would be hold to these national interests). We've seen how successful communism and socialism was, where they nationalised private companies (hint: it didn't turn out well).
"Of course I do. And if you want to have a company in India, producing something to sell in India, be my guest. And if you want to sell your indian stuff in my country, pay your taxes."
Wait. So you don't only want to tax them where they are located, but also where they sell their goods? And you mean more than just VAT (because that's already the case now)? How would you tax a company (on itself, directly) that isn't bound to your territory? By imposing extra taxes on goods that are imported from that company? That's called protectionism. Besides, what kind of bureaucracy wouldn't you need to keep tabs on which company sells what where and to whom and whether or when (because it may change day to day) they have an office in your country and already are or will be taxed, and forbid and stop all goods that might be not in order at the border, which also could change from date to another? Also, that would not only mean you're prone to nationalise or 'seize' assets of someone else ( a private person or entity), you'd also impose a total control of the market, and go for a drastic form of protectionism (otherwise, you couldn't stop people from buying abroad if they want to, obviously). This will never work in the long run - as has been proven by history (or do you know any country who did both things and still was better off than what we have now in the West?), but worse, it's even catastrophic in the short run.
Who the heck would want, as a private investor, invest in a country which can seize your property whenever they feel you're not paying enough? Who would want to *stay* in such a country? You say: 'seize it before they realise it', but apart from that doubtful premise (they'll know pretty fast, rest assured), you can only do that ONCE, if ever. For reference, look at what happened after governments seized companies in socialist countries where they did try that, like in the past with some Latin-American countries. The uncertainty that you'll introduce by doing such a thing would guarantee that your economy would take a nose-dive, and this would be the case as long as one lives in a mondial market-orientated, neo-liberal liberal system (which we do). For your proposal to work, one would need a dictatorial regime with full control of the economy, preferably on a planet-wide scale.
What you suggest is just not realistic. And I think you know that as well. It's something you *want* and ideologically hope for, but I think deep down you know it's unrealistic. Alas, if one wants to actually implement an UBI, one is not going to be able to sustain it with unrealistic wishful thinking. In practise, what you propose will never happen (and it wouldn't be a good thing too, within our free market system). So it's not realistic to claim it would support an UBI. I'm talking now about a *realistic* proposal to introduce an UBI. Advocating a form of communism, arresting the rich, or seizing property *before* the law is passed, is just asinine. (And you would *need* to do it that way, because if you give them the time to see the law coming into effect, they'll bail out again, of course).
Closing the loopholes is all good and well, and certainly you'll have some illegal ones that can be closed, but let's not forget that a great part of it is not due to loopholes, but simply because the government itself makes deals with them, giving them incentives in trying to keep them. M
That wasn't my point. I didn't say no money is or was going to flow out now, I just said you can't recuperate 100% of your money, and thus *what you said*, namely that people will buy stuff and the money of that immediately goes back to the government IS UNTRUE. God damn, you're obnoxiously obtuse.
Only because you put words into my mouth. Some money will come back immediately. All of it will come back eventually, either through longer circles (purchase-loan-purchase-taxes) or through the creation of additional wealth because people start businesses, or create art, or don't have to commit crimes for a living anymore (reduced costs of police, courts and prisons) and many other effects.
Of course if you look at a very simplified model where you ignore any and all side-effects, you can say "money leaves the country, so it will go bancrupt, q.e.d." but you would have to close your eyes quite a lot.
Point is, people order things increasingly from abroad, and if you products and services are more expensive in your country than elsewhere, you'll loose loads of money that way.
Yes, true. Some money will leave the country this way. Time will tell if it's a devastating factor or not. Money also leaves the country in many other ways, for example migrants sending money home to their families, or investments into foreign companies, etc. etc. - I don't have numbers to estimate which of these factors is the largest. Do you?
But what I am saying is that this is already happening, so how is it possibly an argument against basic income?
Did I say I was against basic income? While I have my doubts about the feasibility of financing of an UBI, I did not say I was inherently against it. One just has to be realistic about it, and neither the papers on UBI give a clear answer to this, nor do answers like 'the money will come from the top' bring anything worthwhile (in a pragmatic sense) to the table.
What I DID say was this:
"I think the point of the parent poster was that the "This money will come back to the government in no time." in the post (to which he responded) is wrong."
That's what I said in the original post of this debate. And I still stand with that, and, apparently, you do too, now - at least to some extend. yur now focussing on the semantics of it, arguing about 'all' money or 'some' money, arguing about 'immediately' or 'at the long run', but what you actually said was wrong.
ALL have it very hard to maintain their welfare system. And with sharply rising costs due to an ageing populace, immigrants that can use the benefits without having contributed to it before, and rising costs in healthcare, it's rather obvious none of them will be able to maintain their current system.
Shows how little you know. Yes, the systems are breaking, because - I already explained. And immigrants are actually beneficial, especially to the pension system, because few old people immigrate, young people pay into the pension fund, and they have more children then europeans. That might not sit well with some political orientations, but looking just at the pension system, it's great.
It's also short-sighted. I think it's rather you how shows that you know little about it. The mess we're in now, is entirely due to using the same rationale as you do now. When the baby-boom happened in the 60ies, some economists were saying the exact same thing: "Oh, but that's *great*; that means all those children will pay for the pension fund of those that came before, so it will be a boon to the pension system." And so it was, until 65 years later, when all THOSE children have to have a pension. Since you can't have a continuous exponential rate at which you can bear children - overpopulation, you know - you can't keep having MORE children to support all the ones that came before you. Because those will need more too. And th
If you say you recuperate 20% (btw, you do understand one can directly buy goods abroad by internet, I suppose? And thus, forgo 'local shops', and only leave the distribution-services (partly) as coming 'back into the economy'?) But regardless, saying 20% comes back is saying 80% does not come back.
No, it's saying that 20% comes back to the government immediately. Of the shop price of an electronics item, a good estimate is that 50% goes to the manufacturer. The rest is taxes, shop profit, logistics and such. 50% leaving the country is a more honest estimate (and very few people order their stuff at Alibaba, most will use a local Internet shop).
But that money would leave the country if people get their income from a basic income, or from a salary, or from unemployment money. It's not like when you introduce a basic income, suddenly lots of money will flow out of the country that didn't before. To make a more honest estimate, we should only calculate the difference.
That wasn't my point. I didn't say no money is or was going to flow out now, I just said you can't recuperate 100% of your money, and thus *what you said*, namely that people will buy stuff and the money of that immediately goes back to the government IS UNTRUE. God damn, you're obnoxiously obtuse.
Also, I do not agree with your assessment it's only in the fringe that people order on the internet and buy abroad. In fact, it's one of the most rapidly rising behaviour of the last years (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/newsbysector/retailandconsumer/11657830/Online-shopping-to-grow-by-320bn-in-three-years.html). Your claim that it's mainly 'the local internet shop' is not substantiated and is blind for the current trend. All else being equal, people will buy wherever it's cheapest. And that usually isn't where the wages and taxes are the highest. Hence, they'll buy in neighbouring countries if it's cheaper there, and even in China, the USA, etc. if it's there (only thing holding that back is the taxes/customs, but once there is a trade-agrreement, that vanishes too). Point is, people order things increasingly from abroad, and if you products and services are more expensive in your country than elsewhere, you'll loose loads of money that way.
That money isn't coming back 'immediately', and it won't be, as long as your in a bad position of competition. And countries who have lower taxes and lower labour cost obviously have an advantage to those that don't.
This is all 101 economics; I don't see why I have to spell out the obvious.
And let me reiterate: no, I don't have to look *at the difference*. Nowhere did I say 'the rich' or 'the unemployed' didn't or don't buy things abroad, and thus money is lost that way. I'm just saying YOUR CLAIM, that whatever people buy, the money is flowing right back to the government IS FALSE. Nothing more, nothing less. It means that *any* argument which is based on the assumption that is does, is incorrect too.
in the EU most welfare-systems already are reeling and becoming unmaintainable, even when pouring large sums in it
That is bullshit. The system I have a bit of knowledge about is the german pension system, and it could have very well survived with minor restructuring. It was intentionally sabotaged by two generations of politicians, because the insurance industry wanted in on the gig. So it was a) discussed to death and b) money in the pension fund was used for other purposes until the system actually did hit a crisis. But that crisis was manufactured so that insurance companies could sell you additional pension funds (with tax benefits). Investing the same amount of taxes into the pension fund directly would have easily covered the gaps.
That is why I am so very critical about these "oh, it can't work" criticism, usually coming from people with an interest in not having it work.
Oh, and also: If we worry about money leaving the country, we should arrest all the
"Who was talking about investments?
For example a professor of economy and former finance minister, who said that giving people a basic income will allow a lot of them to start their own business, which they did not so far for fear of failing and ending up with nothing. Many people stay in regular jobs for that reason."
That was a rhetorical question. It was meant to be understood as: "You answer with something that has no relevance on the topic I raised in my comment." No doubt you have myriads of people claiming different things on different topics, but that doesn't mean it answers the question raised in this post. As an analogy, it's like I would ask: "Is there any proof cancer can be treated with ultra-sound", and you answer with: "Chemotherapy has many examples of successfully treating cancers." To which I then ask: "Who was talking about chemotherapy?", to which you in turn answer with: "Well, this and that professor talks extensively about how chemotherapy helps in combating cancer."
Yes, well... That misses the issue entirely, doesn't it? Because that wasn't the point, neither of my original remark, nor of the question.
Money going out (to another) is NOT an investment in ones' own country, so it has no relevance whatsoever in regard to the topic raised.
"To which I say: he is right. People WILL buy things from abroad, and thus it's impossible that all the money comes back - certainly not if you have a trade deficit.
Yes, they will buy things from abroad. Often in local shops (20% already recovered), which pay salaries to their local sales people and contract other local busineses (for cleaning, telecommunication, logistics, etc.) where more jobs are paid from this money. I said "money that immediately goes back", I did not use "all" and "immediately" in the same sentence."
Ah, we're into semantics, now, I see. To be exact, you said: "But the 99.9%, what will they do? Buy better furniture, a new TV, a new iPhone, a new car. Money that immediately goes back into the economy, creates jobs and thus more wealth."
It is clearly implied here, that the money OF the buying of better furniture, a TV, etc. is the same money *that* immediately comes back into the economy. As I've said, and you now seem to agree, this is not, or at least not fully, true. If you say you recuperate 20% (btw, you do understand one can directly buy goods abroad by internet, I suppose? And thus, forgo 'local shops', and only leave the distribution-services (partly) as coming 'back into the economy'?) But regardless, saying 20% comes back is saying 80% does not come back. That still means your economy is LOOSING money, only a bit slower if it's 80% instead of 100%. It doesn't solve the problem, thus. Since that 80% of the money does not immediately go back into the economy. Which means less and less jobs are created, and thus less wealth is being created. Which means less taxes. Which means it's incorrect to state "This money will come back to the government in no time."
Let's finally agree on this. This debate has been going on for far too long just to establish the obvious fact that that particular statement, as it's presented in that comment, is incorrect. It also means that the reasoning which was based on this argument, needs another, preferably better, argument to substantiate it.
I'm actually not inherently adverse towards an UBI that replaces all other benefit-systems we have today. It could be worthwhile to try it out. I only deplore the severe lack of any concrete number-crunching on the actual financial side if one were to implement a national-wide UBI. None of the papers I read so far goes into that in any depth. The current fact is, in the EU most welfare-systems already are reeling and becoming unmaintainable, even when pouring large sums in it. An UBI, by its very nature - since it would give an income to the working class that has no benefits now - would cost considerably more. Since we can't manage the costs already as it is, how exactly is one going to sponsor it, thu
"Ah, the standard neocon bullshit strawman. The rich flee abroad for a million reasons, most of them having nothing to do with taxes."
France with his 'tax for the rich' prove this is not the case. that is to say, sure, there may be other reasons they flee, but surely one major reason is, htat if you tax them too much (certainly on their personal wealth), they WILL go away.
When the rich fled from France to Belgium (and even Russia), they did NOT do it because the people were friendlier or the weather better, they did it because the law/tax for the rich was introduced. I feel you are ignoring reality if you claim otherwise.
In any case, money goes outside the country.
As for the rest:
Basically you're refuting everything with saying 'wealth creation effect'. It should be noted that handwaving that term does not constitute some magical properties. And you do seem to to argue things that have no relevance to the issue at hand. Investments cause wealth creation? Who was talking about investments?
I think your loosing site of the original point of contestation due to your ideological preferences. Let me recap. This was the original contention the parent poster responded to:
""But the 99.9%, what will they do? Buy better furniture, a new TV, a new iPhone, a new car. Money that immediately goes back into the economy, creates jobs and thus more wealth. Wealth that is taxed. This money will come back to the government in no time.
Except they'll buy Swedish furniture, a Korean TV, an American iPhone and a Japanese car (using imported fuel), so half of that money is drained from the economy."
To which I say: he is right. People WILL buy things from abroad, and thus it's impossible that all the money comes back - certainly not if you have a trade deficit.
All your theories and your promotion of your viewpoint on wealth distribution has nothing to do with it; it's just that that specific claim 'Money that immediately goes back into the economy' is clearly false. If you pay for products being made elsewhere, it obviously doesn't mean you are investing in your own country. At most it will lead to investments where the production is being done. It also won't create jobs here; at most it will create jobs *there*. And thus, there is no 'more wealth' being created here, but less. Ergo, the money will NOT flow immediately back to into the economy. It logically follows from the same premise the original poster used himself; it's just that he didn't think it through.
I'll respond factually:
This: http://frac.org/initiatives/am... is NOT a peer-reviewed study with any of the data. Maybe your contention is that it'(s based on such a paper which is susbtantiated with the necessary data, but what is on that page on itself clearly isn't.
This: http://www.basicincomecanada.o... [basicincomecanada.org] does contain papers, of which I already had read 4 prior to you giving me the link. All failed to answer my exact question, however, and a cursory look at the others (granted, I've not read them all) shows that most of them are pertaining to the local experiments we already spoke about. I'm not sure if you are aware what would be an adequate response to my question would be, but it's NOT detailing those experiments and the claims of their dioto benefits. My question pertains to this: if you implement a national-wide UBI, who is going to pay for it and in what matter - susbtantiated by actual numbers and calculations of how this would be sponsored.
These papers, as far as I can see, do NOT answer this, and that's because even when they go into the finances that made them possible, it's clear who made it possible and where the monetary support to implement it came from: from the government/state. As said before, this is hardly surprising, and seen the local aspect of the experiments versus the wealth of an entire nation, it is no wonder it doesn't show any problems concerning the financing of such small UBI-experiments.
My question is: how will it be paid for if you apply A NATIONAL UBI? clearly, such a thing will be orders of magnitudes bigger, which means you can not just use your ordinary taxes an system as it is now, and still expect to be able to pay for it. NONE of the papers address this particular issue with any concrete numbers. At least as far as I've seen - but if I'm wrong in this, please point out the papers you think actually do , concerning this specific question of mine.
I'm always wondering why so many people, when being asked a specific question, think a buckload of links which do not deal with the question asked is the answer. Don't get me wrong: I'm grateful for the links, since they seem at least somewhat better than the average articles on UBI, but That doesn't mean they are all relevant to the specific objection I raised. Take "A wider lens: an analysis of Kesselman’s view of a basic income" for instance. Since I haven't read it, I took the time reading it completely - but to no avail for an answer to my question. It's full of claims of how wonderful such a system would be for the people, it has very little substantiation of facts and numbers - I mean, it just doesn't, sorry - and nowhere is being explained where a national-wide UBI which would cost tens of billions would be paid by. He even seems to claim things like invalidity would get additional benefits on top of the UBI, so it would make things even more expensive.
Now, I'm not making making a definite judgement on all of what is claimed there. It might well be that it's the best thing since sliced bread. But it doesn't answer the question: who's going to pay for it. Can we agree on that?
This: http://www.degruyter.com/view/... [degruyter.com] is a mere summary, which does no good in hinting at an adequate answer neither. The rest is behind a paid wall, and I'm not going to pay for it. In essence, it's not a substantiation of what you said on itself, thus. Do you imply that it is? Are you confirming the paper itself gives a direct answer to my questions? Did you read that paper yourself? In that case, could you please simply give the answer to my question yourself? Because the summary on itself - which it linked to - is pretty worthless in this regard, I'm sure you agree. The same goes for many of the sublinks of your other link. "Basic Income: Econ
Look, maybe we're not understanding eachother.
It could be, that your food-stamp example is all very well in stimulating a 'ripple effect' on the economy (do note that link does NOT provide the actual numbers neither though; in which way is this 'ripple effect being measured, how did they measure it, what procedure did they follow, what were the variables and how did they check for it, etc.) I'm asking, because this is clearly a claim made by the frac itself (Food Research and Action Center), so it would rather be surprising if they would say their efforts are in vein, now wouldn't it? Not saying they ARE misrepresenting things, only that it isn't an academic paper, nor do they provide the necessary data themselves to make a neutral analysis of it.
But this is all besides the point. I wasn't talking about foodstamps or their ripple effect. I'm asking - and let me spell it out once again: WHO is going to pay for the UBI. Saying 'oh, it will give ripple effects' is NOT answering the question. You introduce an UBI. You have to pay for it. You have to pay for it, BEFORE any ripple effects will demonstrate itself (assuming those will actually be noticeable to begin with). Again, I'm asking you: who is going to pay for it?
If you say 'the top' again, please read my remarks about that in my former post. How are you going to remedy the obvious problems I raised against it?
"The richer you are, the more likely you are to bring the money outside the country. Giving everyone a few bucks or giving the super-rich tax cuts - which you think is more likely to keep money inside the country?"
Well, I partially agree that if you tax the rich too much, they're much more prone to flee abroad.
But that doesn't resolve the issue.
What you're saying is: money is getting lost more slowly by the poor than by the rich. Even if one would take that as granted, it still doesn't solve the problem money nevertheless gets exported out of the country and that one can't recuperate 100% of you gave to your citizens (as I said), etc. Which, in turn, still means "This money will come back to the government in no time." is still wrong. I mean; claiming that one bleeds to death faster if a major artery is broken instead of normal arteries may well be, but it still amounts to the same thing: death by bloodloss.
The point here is, that some of your money is ALWAYS going to dissipate, so you can't endlessly recycle the same money because you LOSE money, and thus, the money you lose will not 'come back to the government in no time'. Ergo: the original poster was wrong in that assertion.
"None of the experiments on basic income that were run to date showed evidence of an imperishing the country effect. Where you get this idea and is it backed up by any evidence?"
I know of only three experiments that effectively 'did' have a go on an UBI. All of which would be unable to tell anything about impoverishment, because they were too small-scale to actually be able to demonstrate such an effect. They were mostly local experiments (city-wide at best), not national ones. Please link to any other experiments you know of that were nationally-wide, and I'll look at the data there. Take the one of the Canadian experiment in the 70ies with the small town of Dauphin. Now, that clearly got sponsored/paid for with taxpayers money on the national level. Do you really expect to see a measurable decline of the GNP or overall national income or wealth because that whole country had to support a small town for four years for its UBI-experiment? Of course not! You couldn't do that, even if you tried to measure it, and they didn't try.
However, if you implement the same UBI nationally, it speaks for itself the effect would be hugely and drastically different (aka, several orders of magnitude worse in costs), and you couldn't just pay it without the beating of an eyelash like one could now. All the experiments were far too small to make even a dent in the GNP of the country that was sponsoring it, nor were they even trying to measure such a thing.
And I'm not getting your 'back-up of evidence'. It's self-evident, isn't it? If I have 20 euro, and I spend part of it which never gets back in my pocket, I have become poorer than I was before. If a country spends 20 billion on his citizens and part of that never returns to that country, it has become poorer. It's the most basic of all logical reasonings. Yes, you would still be able to be or become richer then before if your income would augment, but that's why I talked about trade-deficits. Contrary to popular belief, not everyone can be a winner (at least, not if you look at the netto gain you/a country got).
"Yes, but if you are worried about that, then you should already be running around, screaming. And despite popular opinion, a lot of the trade deficit is not with China, but with other EU countries, for example. Germany especially holds a lot of the trade deficit of other EU nations (and, in fact, a larger account balance than China, globally). The Netherlands and, surprise, Switzerland, are high on that list as well. Now since we are talking about Switzerland here, trade deficit is not among their chief concerns."
Again, what has that to do with it? Whether it already is a problem or not worth screaming about is not the issue here. That it IS a problem, is. Whether it's with China or the EU or the US isn't the point neither; that t
Firstly, that doesn't address *any* of the points I raised. It's just yet another unsubstantiated claim.
Secondly, what would be 'the top'? Note that research has already demonstrated that almost everyone agrees that the 'rich' have to redistribute their wealth more *but everyone thinks the ones earning more than themselves are 'the rich'*.
Thirdly, what you say is nowhere substantiated by any data that actually proves this too. It seems highly unlikely even, since it would totally depend on what the person spends it on. If you argue it would just 'augment spending and thus create wealth by augmenting consumption' I don't see why someone should have the right to spend more from money someone else earned. Redistribute wealth enough, and you all get equal... but equally poor. If you don't give incentives to people to become rich, but always redistribute their wealth to the poor, you basically get the disaster that communism has shown us.
Fourthly, let's say you make a definition of 'the top' being the extremely rich, with, say, 100 million dollars (arbitrarily choosen, of course). How, exactly, are you going to force them to redistribute their wealth by a large margin? Note that France tried to do exactly this, with their tax for the rich, and they failed miserably. Because the result was, that the very rich just moved elsewhere, in another country if they had to, avoiding the tax. After less than one year, the law/tax was revoked and scrapped, because it made France get *less* tax-income instead of more. And no, you can't forbid people to live abroad, in a free country.
Idem with large international companies, btw: tax them too much, and they'll just move to other places with a more lenient tax-system.
So, what's left? You can't tax the poor, because they have nothing. And you can't tax the rich, because they just move away.
I know! The middle-class! Those still have some money, yet are not wealthy enough to afford moving to another country. The result being, it's always the middle-class that squeezed out. Do that enough, and you have no middle class left, and your populace only exist of a mass of dirt poor and superrich. And that's exactly what is happening all over the world. It's not only that 'the divide' gets wider, it's also the case the middle-class is slowly disappearing in the West.
The UBI will just be the same as any other benfit-program in this respect; it needs to be paid, and someone has to pay for it, and it will be the middle-class again.
So, unless it's explicitly explained and supported with data who exactly is going to be able to pay for such a system - and none of the papers on UBI thusfar does that - I'm extremely sceptical.
Don't give me platitudes. Show me how much it'll cost, who's going to pay for it *exactly*, and how you're going to effectively get that money, in a realistic way. With numbers, so it can be analysed on the factual data given. All the rest is idle talk, and talk is cheap.
It says: "Once benefits replacement is used as the basis for financing a GI, the money problem becomes manageable"
But that doesn't explain anything. For starters, it presumes the costs of both will be the same, for the same gain. This is highly doubtful. In my country, there is a potential workforce of around 6 million of a total populace of 11 million. Of those, 3,1 million work. Which means 2,9 million are sustained by those 3 million, with taxes to cover for the benefits.
Now, imagine you implement a system like that of Swiss or similar UIB, where EVERYONE gets an income. This means, that not 2,9 million, but 11 million needs to get a benefit...which means it needs to be more than TRIPLED. So how the hell are you going to use 'benefits replacement' as the basis for financing a GI that cost trice as much??! It doesn't make any sense. Well, unless one gives far less benefits per person, but then what's the point, since you're going far under the minimum living standards, then.
Furthermore, I realise they take the US as their example, but in an EU context, where the current benefits and welfare-system is already unmaintainable as it is, it makes even less sense. EVEN if one could pay for it by 'replacing' the current system (which one can't, since it would triple in price), it still would bork, since the current costs are not possible to maintain. At least without any new taxes, and we're already one of the most heavily taxed countries in the world.
But that would be the only viable option: to drastically augment the taxes, so everyone could get a decent universal income. But hen...where are those taxes coming from? Well, the majority comes from... taxes on labour (at least in the EU). So that would effectively mean that those who still *would* work, are far more heavily taxed on their income (at least, the income they earn above the UIB). But...why the heck would anyone even do the trouble of working when they pay you get from it is taxed at 85%?
As said: it doesn't make logical sense.
And it's also typical of the proponents of those systems: they never actually give you the cyphers and numbers. It's full of *statements* and *claims* (in particular about all the hypothesised savings), but without any actual substantiation. And they're particularly vague as who will actually pay for it with how much - let alone they show us any calculation we can analyse. As said, the most they say about it is "Once benefits replacement is used as the basis for financing a GI, the money problem becomes manageable", which is not only pretty contentious to claim without actual anything substantiating it, but is also highly unlikely, as demonstrated above, if one is talking about a truly universal (aka, for all citizens) GI system when applied in a EU context.
Since it's 'given' just like that, it IS damn nice. It would mean whatever you're doing now to earn money, you get that on top of it.
Also, it would depend on the situation. For people owning a house and not having to pay any rent, it would be reasonable comfortable.
Indeed.
While the parent poster is correct that most of the jobs in the West are currently 'taken over' by cheap(er) workforces in China etc., ultimately that's only a short term thing.
Meanwhile, robotics and automation is continuing, ALSO in China. In the long term, it's easy to see where this is going, if one remains logical. At some point, even the cheapest human worker can't compete (in costs) with robots. At that point, they will ALL be replaced.
Companies don't care whether it are humans or robots that allow them to maximise their profit; they just take the cheapest and most cost-effective route. However you turn it, that will be machines, not humans, in the long run. It'll just take a bit longer for that threshold to be broken with $300 Chinese workers than with $1500 EU workers, but eventually it'll get there too.
I think the point of the parent poster was that the "This money will come back to the government in no time." in the post (to which he responded) is wrong.
And it is. There is no way to 'recuperate' 100% of the money you gave away to your citizens. Some of it invariably will go outside your country. Which means, the total amount of money will get less, and thus, one can not keep recycling it indefinitely, which in turn means, *someone* has to pay for it. Unless you keep just printing money indefinitely. But we all know where that is going...
Fact is, a fairly portion of the money will NOT go 'immediately back into the economy'. Sure, it doesn't leave the 'global economy', but that's a small comfort, when it's your region (aka country) that is getting impoverished while those where the money flows to get richer. I mean, sure, it might be all swell and good for the poor Chinese worker, but it still means you(r country) get(s) poorer.
Now, I can imagine you argue: that's the same for other countries too. But you did hear of trade deficits, no? Basically, while all countries deal and trade with eachother, and money and goods will be transferred between them, in the end, some countries will have a net positive balance, and some a net negative. The EU invariably has the tendency to be on the negative side, because of our high labor costs. Sometimes with a considerable difference. Point is, for those 'loosing' countries - and let's face it, we in the EU can't compete with China because we're just too expensive - having 99,9% of our populace 'spend money' will NOT mean all that money can be brought back in the economy. Ergo, it will also not continue to 'create jobs and wealth'. Which means you will get less and less taxes on that wealth, since it's decreasing.
So the whole reasoning of the original poster breaks down, and that was the point the parent poster was making.
What *are* you talking about? Please note that I'm responding to the parent poster who claimed rent was only /10th of the income. If you use *your* calculator, I'm sure it'll indicate that 1/10th is not 40%, and that 1/10th of 1500 is, indeed, 150.
And my point was; that's complete BS, since in most cases, if you take average rents and incomes in Europe, it will be far more than that, and usually surpass even 40% if you want to rent a house as a single.
I'm not sure what you tried to make as a point, though.