"Universal free education - Universal free health care, universal free dentistry, cheap public housing - well those models have all been trimmed back in many countries."
Yes. But not because of its infeasibility but because by privatizing those services the elites can easierly flush all that wealth onto their own pockets.
"What happens if someone spends their money poorly?"
Honest question.
What would you do to, say, your children? Would you give them, say, $1K/month and then say, "there: buy your food, rent a room, etc. and come next month for more" or would you provide them food, shelter, education and healthcare for free and then, maybe some pocket money on top of that for they to expend as they see fit?
Why shouldn't be exactly the same case for the population in general?
"Low-paying jobs will disappear unless UBI is set really low..."
If it's very low, then UBI it is not. But then, compare to the current situation where one can not stand a basic living standard out of a full time minimal wages job.
"People will probably stay unemployed for a longer time between jobs while trying to find the best one out there."
Probably yes. Given Maslow's pyramid, once I have basic needs covered I won't go looking for shitty jobs to cover my basic needs, right?
"Wages.. If someone has a "free" income... what would the required salary be for the person before he starts working?"
Look around you: people already do a lot of things not only for very low wages but even for free -given that they like what they do: social services, open source code, hobbies... What will need to rise salaries will be shitty jobs. In fact, that's a very capitalist way to look at it: it is not free market if one of the parties is not free to engage the deal. Currently, shitty jobs can stay at very low wages basically because the employee is not free to engage the deal (as in basic survivancy is not something you cannot freely engage or disengage into). Once the employee is free to engage these kinds of jobs, just as the employer is free to offer them, their wages will rise to their true free market price.
"Who would ever want a low-paying and boring/repetitive or nasty job?"
Machines. That's the whole point of it: machines gladly take low paying, boring, repetitive and nasty jobs, no only uncomplaining, but doing it better and cheaper than humans.
"100% of the tax that a company pays has to be collected from its customers. If it isn't, the company goes out of business."
That's only true on systems that reached free market equilibrium. The fact that societal economic inequalities are growing and, at the same time, corporate profits are also growing clearly demonstrates the we are not at such equilibrium and that corporations could certainly absorb more taxes (well, cost increases for whatever reason) without flushing them down to their customers.
"Price controls just mean I'm not going to bother building new apartments."
Depends on how it is done. You don't even need to guess, as that already has happened in the past, so you just need to go and look: public housing was common throughout all Europe at least till the seventies.
On one hand, you can provide basic goods and services either out of government owned companies or private owned companies payed with public money. In the first case, yes, you probably won't build this kind of basic shelter because government owned companies will outcompete you: I won't give a damn, since I still will get basic shelter. In the other, provided there's money to be done, you'll compete to build the houses for the government. I very much prefer the first option since the second one opens a big door for corruption.
And in any case, there still will be people with money that will want a better home than the government's that will go to the free market to get it.
"Unless you're suggesting we go all Soviet and have government run housing?"
Except it is not Soviet the only ones that had government running housing: it was also Spain, France, Italy, Germany, Sweden, Finland... just as they used to run telcos, healthcare, education, basic industries... and it didn't end up so bad as that was how they went out of the WW2 disaster in just two/three decades.
1. Revolt 2. UBI 3. Yes, there's a third option, which is not only possible within our current society but it is also easy, and has been tried and tested.
Let state-owned corporations provide for whatever is considered basic needs. This will vary depending on each current country's wealth level. For some poorer countries this might mean a 500 sqf flat, some food stamps and basic socialized health and education systems; richer countries may also cover infotainment, better shelter, higher education... whatever. For everything else not considered basic, let capitalism work just like today, competing for whatever money people gets from whatever jobs there are still there -or are created anew due to the new opportunities.
That's exactly the way Europe came out from WWII and allowed for its quick recovery after that mess: telcos, healthcare, education, cheap shelter, part of banking, heavy industry... was stated-owned and it was not till Tatcherism/Reaganomics that they self-instructed to dismantle all that system and pushed for the idea that everything should be privatized -which, in turn, ended up with our last economic crysis and the current seemingly unstoppable increasing inegallities (self? sure? the Bilderbergs of this world had no relationship with all that?).
And now, instead of the obvious -return to what has shown to work, there's this strong push to put more free money into the system as if, this time, isn't in the end to be flushed towards less and less hands.
"Universal basic income is simply about efficiency."
Universal basic income is simply about greed.
Look at what has happened in the last two/three decades (more or less starting with Tatcher/Reagan): inequalities have increased in our first world.
Now, think what is a necessary condition for those inequalities in our first world (more or less democratic) societies: money, lots of money. If there were no money, rich powerful people wouldn't be able to flush money away from the general population towards their own pockets. What happened in Europe?? What were public services became private services. In the end, more money into the system so it could be flushed into the pockets of the few. What was the seed of our last crysis but flushing more money into the system (in the form of mortage credits, which is money from the future) and how has it ended? More money running, more money into the pockets of the few.
And now, the solution for this kind of system is... more money into the system!!!??? What kind of magic will avoid, on one hand the obvious: more money that doesn't come from more productivity has always meant inflation. This time is not going to be the case exactly how? And then, what we already saw: more money is more chance for the few to flush it away to their pockets.
I must put my tin foil hat here because otherwise I can't understand why people is not pushing for the obvious solution: I don't want damn money for basic subsistence: I want damn services. Instead of giving me money for my basic subsistence, provide me free food, shelter, education and health services and let me use whatever money I manage to put my hands on to be expended on my leisure.
Of course this kind of society, with strong state-owned companies for basic services, allows for less opportunities from the few to flush away wealth towards their pockets, so it won't happen.
"How are you going to enforce this? The majority of "smart" devices are shipped directly from China"
The same way things like that are enforced in EU: no seal of approval? can't be legally imported. For things that are imported by a trader in USA, you go after the trader. For things that are imported by an end user, that's what things like TTIP *should* be: government-to-government agreement that this won't happen or the seller will be fined by its domestic country..
What for? These North Koreans have demonstrated one thing for sure: they know how to build a sturdy ballistic missile: it explodes three times in a row and it's still ready to explode the forth time!
"I don't much like Trump, but I like this. Everyone should pay the least taxes they legally can."
Think of it for a moment. Just think of it.
In fact, everybody *already* pay the least taxes they legally can. Now, the problem is what happens when you are on wages versus what happens when you are on capital gains. Again, think of it, and you'll see such an assertion is both a platitude and a scam.
"I knew some fool would post this. Here is a hint: East Africa is a LOT like West Africa."
Of course yes. And West Africa is VERY different to living three years on a boat compared to East Africa. People even used to die of strange illnesses when they tried to do it (and you see, even LEO -which is VERY different to living on Mars, doesn't do that to us). Yet humankind managed to cope with it.
My point wasn't that we can live in Mars -I don't know it. My point is that "very different" is no argument at all when talking about the human species since our main specialization is basically "going beyond".
"here is literally a whole world of unseen (a la Bastiat) opportunity costs behind this overbuilt boondoggle, especially in a country largely still mired in poverty."
Was it a matter of excessive expenditure, or was it a lack of proper founding?
After all, if they had financed a distribution network aligned with the production now they'd be selling the excess to their neighbours.
I beg to differ, as do people who read newsspeak, read the internet"
It's funny then, that just yesterday, in the most sold newspaper in my country (so, for the masses), the CEO of one of the biggest telcos in the world presented his newly appointed Chief Data Officer as the "most famous hacker in the country". You can bet he was not talking about somebody that illegally breaks into others' systems.
OK, since you asked... My point is: 1) Being 46, you shouldn't overload yourself, neither with so much fat nor even muscle: your good days are already in your past. At your age (which happens to be mine too) you should much better go for (controlled) resistance than power. You want to live past your early sixties, don't you? 2) You are fat. Not terribly fat, but fat, nevertheless. You could -and probably should, take out about no less than 100 pounds just to be in shape, for the shape you are looking for (which I can't support anyway, see point 1). 3) You *know* you are fat. Even dressing in black it's obvious you are dressing a girdle -not to lift some heavy weight, mind you, just for the photograph.
All that said, I must apologize: I was expecting a true butterball on his last teens/early twenties and you are just (so it looks like) a fat but strong man.
No, they don't. They are of about as much value as your zodiac sign though. If you take BMI for anything more than a quick approach for an average adult (which, obviously, Schwarzenegger, is not) you are nuts.
"Where in my comments did I walking 20 minutes a day a "sport"?"
The fact that you even mentioned it is quite significant. 20 minutes a day is about what I walk just to/from my car and I surely wouldn't even think of mentioning it in any sports/fitness-related conversation.
"I'm not some 350-pound butterball."
Yes, you most probably are. The fact that despite all your self-defense you haven't mentioned neither your age nor your height is also revealing.
"I lost my water fat years ago."
Wait! -water fat!? I remember hearing about that obnoxious concept some time ago but I can't recall which crazy diet held that concept... I'm afraid you are not only glutton but gullible too.
"I'm carrying muscle mass."
Not that I don't want to believe you but 350 pounds of pure muscle on any less than 6'5" in height would put you most probably among the strongest men in the world if not the strongest so, quite strange I've not hear about you before.
"Wouldn't it be better to save state on logout and restore on login?"
Wouldn't it be better if you learn that for the computer to do things on my behalf it's not needed that I stay in front of the computer, that I don't even need to maintain an interactive session opened for that to happen?
"Even if eliminated every ounce of body fat, I will still be considered obese â" just like Arnold Schwarzenegger."
Bullshit.
On one hand, Mr Olympia is not about healthyness but about muscle build up in a more or less harmonic way.
On the other, the Arnold Schwarzenegger you mention, by the time he was winning his Mr Olympia titles, weighted 260lbs for his 6'2" height, a far shot from your 350. And that was his off-season weight. His competition weight was more like 210lbs.
And even for all his Mr Olympia titles, we are talking about a man that when starred Conan was unable to scratch his own nape (didn't you find funny what they needed to do for Conan to take his sword out of his back?) and was in need of heart valve surgery most probably related to his abuse of steroids.
You walk -not even run, 20 minutes a day and call that sport... You can fool yourself all you want. Don't think others will also be fooled.
Slashdot Mirror
"Universal free education - Universal free health care, universal free dentistry, cheap public housing - well those models have all been trimmed back in many countries."
Yes. But not because of its infeasibility but because by privatizing those services the elites can easierly flush all that wealth onto their own pockets.
"What happens if someone spends their money poorly?"
Honest question.
What would you do to, say, your children? Would you give them, say, $1K/month and then say, "there: buy your food, rent a room, etc. and come next month for more" or would you provide them food, shelter, education and healthcare for free and then, maybe some pocket money on top of that for they to expend as they see fit?
Why shouldn't be exactly the same case for the population in general?
"UBI clearly isn't an ideal solution but then what is?"
Letting state owned facilities to provide basic coverage of goods and services and letting free market to cover for everything else.
"The promise of "something for nothing" is not only unsustainable, it is deeply immoral"
If you really think so, please stop breathing as you getting all that air for nothing is simply immoral.
"Low-paying jobs will disappear unless UBI is set really low..."
If it's very low, then UBI it is not. But then, compare to the current situation where one can not stand a basic living standard out of a full time minimal wages job.
"People will probably stay unemployed for a longer time between jobs while trying to find the best one out there."
Probably yes. Given Maslow's pyramid, once I have basic needs covered I won't go looking for shitty jobs to cover my basic needs, right?
"Wages .. If someone has a "free" income... what would the required salary be for the person before he starts working?"
Look around you: people already do a lot of things not only for very low wages but even for free -given that they like what they do: social services, open source code, hobbies... What will need to rise salaries will be shitty jobs. In fact, that's a very capitalist way to look at it: it is not free market if one of the parties is not free to engage the deal. Currently, shitty jobs can stay at very low wages basically because the employee is not free to engage the deal (as in basic survivancy is not something you cannot freely engage or disengage into). Once the employee is free to engage these kinds of jobs, just as the employer is free to offer them, their wages will rise to their true free market price.
"Who would ever want a low-paying and boring/repetitive or nasty job?"
Machines. That's the whole point of it: machines gladly take low paying, boring, repetitive and nasty jobs, no only uncomplaining, but doing it better and cheaper than humans.
"100% of the tax that a company pays has to be collected from its customers. If it isn't, the company goes out of business."
That's only true on systems that reached free market equilibrium. The fact that societal economic inequalities are growing and, at the same time, corporate profits are also growing clearly demonstrates the we are not at such equilibrium and that corporations could certainly absorb more taxes (well, cost increases for whatever reason) without flushing them down to their customers.
"Price controls just mean I'm not going to bother building new apartments."
Depends on how it is done. You don't even need to guess, as that already has happened in the past, so you just need to go and look: public housing was common throughout all Europe at least till the seventies.
On one hand, you can provide basic goods and services either out of government owned companies or private owned companies payed with public money. In the first case, yes, you probably won't build this kind of basic shelter because government owned companies will outcompete you: I won't give a damn, since I still will get basic shelter. In the other, provided there's money to be done, you'll compete to build the houses for the government. I very much prefer the first option since the second one opens a big door for corruption.
And in any case, there still will be people with money that will want a better home than the government's that will go to the free market to get it.
"Unless you're suggesting we go all Soviet and have government run housing?"
Except it is not Soviet the only ones that had government running housing: it was also Spain, France, Italy, Germany, Sweden, Finland... just as they used to run telcos, healthcare, education, basic industries... and it didn't end up so bad as that was how they went out of the WW2 disaster in just two/three decades.
1. Revolt
2. UBI
3. Yes, there's a third option, which is not only possible within our current society but it is also easy, and has been tried and tested.
Let state-owned corporations provide for whatever is considered basic needs. This will vary depending on each current country's wealth level. For some poorer countries this might mean a 500 sqf flat, some food stamps and basic socialized health and education systems; richer countries may also cover infotainment, better shelter, higher education... whatever. For everything else not considered basic, let capitalism work just like today, competing for whatever money people gets from whatever jobs there are still there -or are created anew due to the new opportunities.
That's exactly the way Europe came out from WWII and allowed for its quick recovery after that mess: telcos, healthcare, education, cheap shelter, part of banking, heavy industry... was stated-owned and it was not till Tatcherism/Reaganomics that they self-instructed to dismantle all that system and pushed for the idea that everything should be privatized -which, in turn, ended up with our last economic crysis and the current seemingly unstoppable increasing inegallities (self? sure? the Bilderbergs of this world had no relationship with all that?).
And now, instead of the obvious -return to what has shown to work, there's this strong push to put more free money into the system as if, this time, isn't in the end to be flushed towards less and less hands.
"Universal basic income is simply about efficiency."
Universal basic income is simply about greed.
Look at what has happened in the last two/three decades (more or less starting with Tatcher/Reagan): inequalities have increased in our first world.
Now, think what is a necessary condition for those inequalities in our first world (more or less democratic) societies: money, lots of money. If there were no money, rich powerful people wouldn't be able to flush money away from the general population towards their own pockets. What happened in Europe?? What were public services became private services. In the end, more money into the system so it could be flushed into the pockets of the few. What was the seed of our last crysis but flushing more money into the system (in the form of mortage credits, which is money from the future) and how has it ended? More money running, more money into the pockets of the few.
And now, the solution for this kind of system is... more money into the system!!!??? What kind of magic will avoid, on one hand the obvious: more money that doesn't come from more productivity has always meant inflation. This time is not going to be the case exactly how? And then, what we already saw: more money is more chance for the few to flush it away to their pockets.
I must put my tin foil hat here because otherwise I can't understand why people is not pushing for the obvious solution: I don't want damn money for basic subsistence: I want damn services. Instead of giving me money for my basic subsistence, provide me free food, shelter, education and health services and let me use whatever money I manage to put my hands on to be expended on my leisure.
Of course this kind of society, with strong state-owned companies for basic services, allows for less opportunities from the few to flush away wealth towards their pockets, so it won't happen.
"Do you need the government to wipe your butt?"
This is a democracy. I *hire* the government to wipe my butt.
"How are you going to enforce this? The majority of "smart" devices are shipped directly from China"
The same way things like that are enforced in EU: no seal of approval? can't be legally imported. For things that are imported by a trader in USA, you go after the trader. For things that are imported by an end user, that's what things like TTIP *should* be: government-to-government agreement that this won't happen or the seller will be fined by its domestic country..
"Can't they just bootleg a copy of Photoshop?"
What for? These North Koreans have demonstrated one thing for sure: they know how to build a sturdy ballistic missile: it explodes three times in a row and it's still ready to explode the forth time!
"businesses may not have an incentive to support software updates for the full useful life of these devices"
Make mandatory by force of law and there you have your incentive.
"I don't much like Trump, but I like this. Everyone should pay the least taxes they legally can."
Think of it for a moment. Just think of it.
In fact, everybody *already* pay the least taxes they legally can. Now, the problem is what happens when you are on wages versus what happens when you are on capital gains. Again, think of it, and you'll see such an assertion is both a platitude and a scam.
"I knew some fool would post this. Here is a hint: East Africa is a LOT like West Africa."
Of course yes. And West Africa is VERY different to living three years on a boat compared to East Africa. People even used to die of strange illnesses when they tried to do it (and you see, even LEO -which is VERY different to living on Mars, doesn't do that to us). Yet humankind managed to cope with it.
My point wasn't that we can live in Mars -I don't know it. My point is that "very different" is no argument at all when talking about the human species since our main specialization is basically "going beyond".
"here is literally a whole world of unseen (a la Bastiat) opportunity costs behind this overbuilt boondoggle, especially in a country largely still mired in poverty."
Was it a matter of excessive expenditure, or was it a lack of proper founding?
After all, if they had financed a distribution network aligned with the production now they'd be selling the excess to their neighbours.
"We aren't ever going to live anywhere else but the Earth. We evolved on Earth."
We aren't ever going to live anywhere else but East Africa. We evolved on East Africa.
I beg to differ, as do people who read newsspeak, read the internet"
It's funny then, that just yesterday, in the most sold newspaper in my country (so, for the masses), the CEO of one of the biggest telcos in the world presented his newly appointed Chief Data Officer as the "most famous hacker in the country". You can bet he was not talking about somebody that illegally breaks into others' systems.
"I'm 5'-10" and 46-years-old. And your point?"
OK, since you asked... My point is:
1) Being 46, you shouldn't overload yourself, neither with so much fat nor even muscle: your good days are already in your past. At your age (which happens to be mine too) you should much better go for (controlled) resistance than power. You want to live past your early sixties, don't you?
2) You are fat. Not terribly fat, but fat, nevertheless. You could -and probably should, take out about no less than 100 pounds just to be in shape, for the shape you are looking for (which I can't support anyway, see point 1).
3) You *know* you are fat. Even dressing in black it's obvious you are dressing a girdle -not to lift some heavy weight, mind you, just for the photograph.
All that said, I must apologize: I was expecting a true butterball on his last teens/early twenties and you are just (so it looks like) a fat but strong man.
"The BMI numbers don't lie."
No, they don't. They are of about as much value as your zodiac sign though. If you take BMI for anything more than a quick approach for an average adult (which, obviously, Schwarzenegger, is not) you are nuts.
"Where in my comments did I walking 20 minutes a day a "sport"?"
The fact that you even mentioned it is quite significant. 20 minutes a day is about what I walk just to/from my car and I surely wouldn't even think of mentioning it in any sports/fitness-related conversation.
"I'm not some 350-pound butterball."
Yes, you most probably are. The fact that despite all your self-defense you haven't mentioned neither your age nor your height is also revealing.
"I lost my water fat years ago."
Wait! -water fat!? I remember hearing about that obnoxious concept some time ago but I can't recall which crazy diet held that concept... I'm afraid you are not only glutton but gullible too.
"I'm carrying muscle mass."
Not that I don't want to believe you but 350 pounds of pure muscle on any less than 6'5" in height would put you most probably among the strongest men in the world if not the strongest so, quite strange I've not hear about you before.
"So a slight change in syntax, not a big deal IMHO."
No, the slight change in syntax is not a big deal. That you think changing behaviour for the sake of it is not a big deal, *is* the big deal.
"Wouldn't it be better to save state on logout and restore on login?"
Wouldn't it be better if you learn that for the computer to do things on my behalf it's not needed that I stay in front of the computer, that I don't even need to maintain an interactive session opened for that to happen?
"That was a crack. Language has moved on and left the old definitions in the past."
Only it has not moved. When a comment in code reads " # dirty hack: I did this because... " nobody thinks the author left a backdoor in the program.
"Even if eliminated every ounce of body fat, I will still be considered obese â" just like Arnold Schwarzenegger."
Bullshit.
On one hand, Mr Olympia is not about healthyness but about muscle build up in a more or less harmonic way.
On the other, the Arnold Schwarzenegger you mention, by the time he was winning his Mr Olympia titles, weighted 260lbs for his 6'2" height, a far shot from your 350. And that was his off-season weight. His competition weight was more like 210lbs.
And even for all his Mr Olympia titles, we are talking about a man that when starred Conan was unable to scratch his own nape (didn't you find funny what they needed to do for Conan to take his sword out of his back?) and was in need of heart valve surgery most probably related to his abuse of steroids.
You walk -not even run, 20 minutes a day and call that sport... You can fool yourself all you want. Don't think others will also be fooled.