"Fragmentation means people needing to belong to and check multiple platforms"
No, it doesn't. How many email services do you connect to? There are thousands of them and still you don't have any problem to get and send emails from/to anyother. How can this be?
Hint: the fact that things are a given way doesn't mean it must be the only possible one.
Wow! it seems you have an axe to grind, don't you?
"CoolSoft has a vision to create a revolutionary product that crushes the 3D content creation pipeline marke"
So first things first: who came to the development team asking "...to create a revolutionary product..."? Because *that's* the development team's customer.
"find world class technical directors that have been living/breathing/eating 3D content pipelines for at least 10 years and who want to create something great - in other words pay for DOMAIN EXPERTISE so you can build the bedrock of your product by relying on their expertise augmented by your own and your teams' synergies."
Two things: 1. "Build projects around motivated individuals. Give them the environment and support they need, and trust them to get the job done."
So bringing on board a "world class technical directors that have been living/breathing/eating 3D content pipelines for at least 10 years and who want to create something great" is as agile as it can get.
2. Yeah, well, let your super-expert look at his belly button, or work out of his gut feelings instead of relying on gathering quantitative info from his customers because he has been living/breathing/eating the technology for decades: - I've been managing commercial airlines for 40 years and you are *not* going to tell me what customers expect: they expect a luxury experience and they are willing to pay more for the feeling. Flying is not just "taking a bus on wings", I tell you, I know! And then came Virgin, and Ryanair...
"NOT AGILE - Again, another bullshit Agile zealot straw man. Oh, before Agile, nobody built projects around motivated people."
Where did the people after the Agile Manifesto tell their twelve points were the most novel thing since warm water and sliced bread? The fact that you can take any of those points apart and tell it's no novelty doesn't make it not part of the agile manifesto. Heck, I could tell the same about the twelve together! "Where's the fuss, aren't they obvious to anybody?"
"Wait - Agile invented the post-mortem? The dev cycle review? Feedback meetings? Progress reviews?"
Again, where's the claim that they invented them? Nowhere right?
"how did we do all that before Agile came around and told us it had value?"
Badly. That's why they felt the need to re-state what should have been obvious from the beginning. I can be generous and tell that was because, for those in command, the daily routines made the trees obscure the forest for them, or I can be cynic and tell management found a way of self-promotion in that even something as obvious as the agile manifesto was/is beyond their capabilities. One way or the other, it's good somebody have the inclination and clarity to put them black on white. That even after *that*, people don't see the obvious, and understand "agile" as being stand-ups or sprints, or unknowledgeable mid managers micromanaging the hell out of them, or wandering around in chaos without clear goals, or hiring a bunch of freshmans that barely know what 'git clone' means because they are cheaper and easy to cheat, or using Jira instead of Remedy is beyond my comprehension abilities.
"If you are dealing with contractual or cross-divisional politics, relying on face-to-face is incredibly naive."
So naive that this is basically the first thing the board of directors will do for anything that seems important, or one board of directors to another as soon as big money is involved.
Again, I'll repeat myself:
"The most efficient and effective method of conveying information to and within a development team is face-to-face conversation."
Have you *ever* really find other more efficient method? That even the best written down specs doesn't benefit from a face-to-face with their authors to clarify the most obscure/difficult points? And then, "most efficient" doesn't mean "only one".
"If your company has a technology or product related vision - you should not use Agile."
So which part exactly should this kind of company ditch out?
"Our highest priority is to satisfy the customer through early and continuous delivery of valuable software."
This one? "Minimally Viable Product" is not a fit concept for a product or technology related company? Really?
"Welcome changing requirements, even late in development. Agile processes harness change for the customer's competitive advantage."
Do you really think your Product Manager is really infallible? That he won't take advantage of knowing the resulting product/technology as it's going on to perfect his own mind and vision? Really?
"Deliver working software frequently, from a couple of weeks to a couple of months, with a preference to the shorter timescale."
See MVP. And then, if you can't produce a working piece within two months, rethink very carefully, since you probably don't understand it well enough as to put your time/money on it. If after deep thinking, you really think a given piece of your solution really takes that long, go ahead, on your own peril. These, after all, are just "principles", not Law from God carved in stone.
"Business people and developers must work together daily throughout the project."
Do you think your great Product Manager should communicate his wonderful vision to the development minions and then disappear for a year? Really?
"Build projects around motivated individuals. Give them the environment and support they need, and trust them to get the job done."
I have problems even finding a viable alternative to the above one, so go figure!
"The most efficient and effective method of conveying information to and within a development team is face-to-face conversation."
Have you *ever* really find other more efficient method? That even the best written down specs doesn't benefit from a face-to-face with their authors to clarify the most obscure/difficult points? And then, "most efficient" doesn't mean "only one".
"Working software is the primary measure of progress."
Talked from the developer's perspective. Can there really be any other measure of progress?
"Agile processes promote sustainable development. The sponsors, developers, and users should be able to maintain a constant pace indefinitely."
Unless death march is your hobby, of course!
"Continuous attention to technical excellence and good design enhances agility."
Really? who would figured that!
"Simplicity--the art of maximizing the amount of work not done--is essential."
Ockham's razor in action. Valid for any complex project, isn't it?
"The best architectures, requirements, and designs emerge from self-organizing teams."
Humm... one that can be argued... at least! But, now, think of the chances of your great Product Owner to achieve any goal if he doesn't manage to be recognized as an trust-worthy figure to follow. That's also self-organization.
"At regular intervals, the team reflects on how to become more effective, then tunes and adjusts its behavior accordingly."
Continous improvement anyone?
Now, really, you can tell that this is too general to be put in practice as-is but are you really arguing these are not (mutanda mutandi) desireable principles for basically *any* human endevour?
"The flip side is that you never do any of the work that by nature is too big for a sprint"
I think we all see the problem about corporations trying to sell their "agile tools", management that go the "cargo cult" path without understanding what are they doing... But still there's something on this news and your comment clearly exposes it.
What the hell have "sprints" to do with agile so what you say could possible be true? Go, find the word "sprint" within the entire "agile manifesto", I challenge you*1.
So, yes, for the most part there *is* a problem about "agile this/agile that" when it's obvious there's no idea what "agile" is really about -and I don't mean obscure philosophy that needs years of meditation to find enlightenment, I mean a damn 25 lines document! Just go read it and assess how well your organization fits to those 25 lines.
*1 Yes, of course I know it says "Deliver working software frequently, from a couple of weeks to a couple of months, with a preference to the shorter timescale." but it doesn't say "sprint", which is a technical world from a process framework. Follow the principles, and you'll be OK.
"Tragedy of the Commons (Look it up; there is a good read on Wikipedia.)"
Exactly that. And then moronic egotism (its near relative). Just look at the entry: "Broken Economics of Open Source" but, then, what that "broken economics of Opern Source" means for the author? It basically ends up "I want tons of money from VC for something that will never have so much value form them" -it seems his target is "billionaire or nothing"... and even he has the guts to say "If I take out all the ways I know I can make money off of open source (consulting, services, and support), then there is no other way to make money that I know about". Simply brilliant, Monthy Python level, "what have the romans ever done for us?"
Now, what *should* be the proper way to make money out of open source? Well, it's right there, open to anybody to see, as long as they want to: software takes effort to write, but it doesn't take effort to replicate, then the answer is obvious: bill the "writing code" fact. In no part of any open source license says the code needs to be written for free; they are only about what you can do with that code *once* is already written (basically being "you can't control it anymore").
Now, the problem comes from the fact that people (not only corporations: people) very much prefer acquiring things they can already see better than things that are in the future. It's not only a thing of software: i.e.: most millionaires (specially unknowledged ones) will prefer paying, say, 5000$ for a pret-a-porter suit than 3000$ for a bespoke one and that says all.
Add to this the myopic greed of most corporations: right now I'm working for a big bank on an Openstack deployment with a strong backing from Red Hat (and quite a few in-house consultors from them). What's the best value those consultors bring? Being able to talk about our common problems with other Red Hat consultors working on very similar projects on other industries, even competing banks, and sharing the solutions they find. Of course, if we were clever, we could get rid of the middleman and just set our own communication channels with our competitors: there's even a MBA-buzzword for that: coopetition. But, of course too, we prefer paying money through our noses to Red Hat better than sharing efforts with our competition.
The very same idea could be expanded to the production of the software itself: take the common software requirements of Fortune 100 corporations: they could build an alliance and pay for the common software they need on themselves; it could be open source and developers could be payed for the part that takes the effort -it won't happen in a million years. Not because "open source is broken" but because *we* are broken.
"You believe what you see in movies and TV shows is reality in the US?"
No, but I believe public statistics: violent and car mortality in USA is basically the highest of first world countries, sometimes as much as an order of magnitude higher.
"I really can't imagine the degree of cowardice necessary to actually pay someone to inform an employer that you're quitting."
You know, the world doesn't end at USA borders. It's not cowardice but a different culture. In Japan, leaving a job, specially "just" because is better paid can be seen as a betrayal which, obviously is a dishonor.
Can you fathom how many people die in USA because reckless driving or not going out of an obviously impending fighting? Maybe others won't imagine the degree of cowardice necessary to prefer dying to being called "girlie" for "Miss Daisy-like driving" or fleeing away from an absolutely uncalled for fight.
"If a majority are revenue neutral then there wouldn't be massive inflation."
Even then you can have a inflation scalation: poor people are selective on their buyings vs average in a way directly tied to the basic food basket i.e.: more towards potatoes than cars. Increasing demand on those items will certainly grow their price up to the equilibrium point (that is, up to whatever the enhanced purse of those below minimum can afford) and, with this, everything else will come later. If you want for UBI to stay Basic, you'll need to increase it's value to counter inflation on those basic items and then go back to square one.
Being necessities, you cannot avoid buying them for as long as you have money, which basically locks you up to the maximum price they can afford: the more money you pump towards the poor's side, the more inflation will necessarily rise to absorb it.
"By giving my customer's customers more money in their pocket, it all comes back to me in the form of higher wages, higher profitability, and better returns on my stock options."
Because increasing demand from an unproductive pool won't increase prices by that exact amount. You increase access to mortages and houses prices rise; you increase access to education loans and tuition fees increase, but somehow you inject "free money" and it won't impact inflation. Yeah, sure.
"So, while technically a tax increase, actually revenue neutral to most people"
So there is no people that would be financially better with UBI than without it (including today's welfare)?
Because if there is people that are better off with UBI, and obviously they will be at the lowest side of the scale, they'll be buying more necessities than they do now. Increasing demand of necessities will mean inflation by the exact quantity of money injected.
This, in turn, will mean two things: 1) UBI will not be Basic anymore -inflation will mean that whatever UBI is, it doesn't allow to make ends meet. 2) Even if it's true that technically UBI is financially neutral for most people, in practice, due to inflation, most people will be worse off.
Now: who and why is pushing UBI? Isn't it curious that UBI -that is, "gifting money", is pushed by some big money (and a lot of gullible others)? Can it be that they know what the real answer for a future world without enough jobs for everybody should be, but it would make them financially worse, so they are pushing for a "capitalist" solution instead?
The worse case scenario in our future is not a civilization that can not productive enough to offer basic support for everybody, but a civilization that can not offer jobs for everybody to get their share on that productivity. The answer is obvious: do not tie access to goods to job-based incomes; the non-answer is also obvious: do not give "money for free". Money is not goods, just a proxy for goods... provided inflation doesn't eat it, which is the obvious output of UBI, and one that supports current statu quo of increasing inequality. No wonder those that would lose the more with a proper solution in place are pushing for the non-solution instead.
The real answer is not even a revolution: most countries already socialized one or more of army, police, education and healthcare, so it's just a matter of extending it to cover food and shelter too. It doesn't even mean "OMG THAT'S FUCKING COMMUNISM!!!" since state offering food and shelter for free doesn't necessarily mean is government the owner of those means of production if not wanted: just like government, even in USA, offers army for free to their citizens but still their fighter planes are bought to private companies, food and shelter could follow the same model.
So, please, let's stop this nonsense of UBI and let's start thinking on solutions that can work instead.
"Crypto currencies, the US Federal Reserve, why is it, they seem like much the same thing, hmm, I wonder. How different is bitcoin from the US dollar"
In that they both are fiat currencies? Yes, they are much the same.
Fiat currencies are supported by a collective illusion of value. *Working* fiat currencies have the means to *impose* the illusion to those that disbelieve it. In the case of the USA dollar that's USA's federal government, their tax collectors and their standing army. In the case of bitcoins is...?
"It is the temptation of governmental coercion that corrupts capitalists into non-capitalist cronies."
What you don't understand is that there are no "capitalists" to start with: all of them already are "non-capitalist cronies". The only difference is if they already got their desires or they are only on their way to them. Heck! that's they key of capitalism success: that it understands that 'man is wolf to man' and *tries* to use that to the system's (i.e. overall's well-being) advantage, keyword "tries".
If there's a strong government that would stop them from achieve their goals on a legal way, they take their money to bribe the government; if not, they take their money to just make it happen (i.e.: they build a private army -it's not just an imagination but a reality: a strong enough government? USA-style cronyism; not a strong enough government? Somalian-style war-lords... and, of course, all shades of gray in the middle).
Now, it's up to you to consider what you understand to be a desirable social contract and review how tools and processes are laid out to make it happen and, after that, check results to tune the system as it goes. That's the burden of democracy.
"WTF are you talking about. The US military has not relied on conscription since the Vietnam era."
Do you even read? The US military is as much conscription-based as doctors in any socialized health-care first world country.
"The socialist systems are failing hard"
Thank you for letting me know. Let me think about it for a while...
Nope, even after your enlightment, I prefer my country's socialized health-care system -and its statistical output regarding not only life expectancy and population health variance, death rates at birth, etc. but also its per capita costs, to USA's any day of the week, twice on Sundays.
"Do they get to pick what you're having for supper or what products can be sold at the grocery store?"
Yes, at least, up to a point. In most countries there are in place one regulation or another regarding, i.e. the ability to sell (or not) tobacco, alcohol and/or prescription drugs.
"I suspect that if you tried to join the Socialist party in just about any country, the idea "capitalist economy with extensive social programs" would not be the platform of the party or one that they're likely to accept."
Where are you from? I say this because that's exactly what any Socialist party in any European country would support: "capitalist economy with extensive social programs". Maybe it is "communist party" what you are looking for, not Socialist. And even Communist parties, starting on the late 70's early 80's, had strong factions embracing what was called "eurocommunism" which is, basically, that: "capitalist economy with extensive social programs".
"The moment you conscript (yes) a doctor or teacher, and Require society to pay them a set wage, you'll find that they become in short supply, especially when considering the rest of the market is more or less open and free."
Except, of course, that's EXACTLY what happens in basically the whole of first world with the exception of USA without the ominous results you predict. By the way, even in USA, that's what happens to military personnel, which your country doesn't seem to be in short supply, either.
But, of course, don't let reality get in the way of your very well built rationalizations.
It is not. Automation is only better up to the point is cheaper and less conflictive.
Right now, automation is always less conflictive and it's more expensive only where you can have human labour at semi-slavist conditions (i.e.: China). So, right now, you can avoid automation as long as you allow to downgrade your live status to Chinese standards. And even China-like status is in danger: automation is not going to be more expensive but the other way around, cheaper and more pervasive, and even in those places that it makes economic sense because of the extremely cheap human labour costs, these costs can only grow as it has been the trend since industrial revolution.
Slashdot Mirror
"Fragmentation means people needing to belong to and check multiple platforms"
No, it doesn't. How many email services do you connect to? There are thousands of them and still you don't have any problem to get and send emails from/to anyother. How can this be?
Hint: the fact that things are a given way doesn't mean it must be the only possible one.
Wow! it seems you have an axe to grind, don't you?
"CoolSoft has a vision to create a revolutionary product that crushes the 3D content creation pipeline marke"
So first things first: who came to the development team asking "...to create a revolutionary product..."? Because *that's* the development team's customer.
"find world class technical directors that have been living/breathing/eating 3D content pipelines for at least 10 years and who want to create something great - in other words pay for DOMAIN EXPERTISE so you can build the bedrock of your product by relying on their expertise augmented by your own and your teams' synergies."
Two things:
1. "Build projects around motivated individuals.
Give them the environment and support they need,
and trust them to get the job done."
So bringing on board a "world class technical directors that have been living/breathing/eating 3D content pipelines for at least 10 years and who want to create something great" is as agile as it can get.
2. Yeah, well, let your super-expert look at his belly button, or work out of his gut feelings instead of relying on gathering quantitative info from his customers because he has been living/breathing/eating the technology for decades:
- I've been managing commercial airlines for 40 years and you are *not* going to tell me what customers expect: they expect a luxury experience and they are willing to pay more for the feeling. Flying is not just "taking a bus on wings", I tell you, I know! And then came Virgin, and Ryanair...
"NOT AGILE - Again, another bullshit Agile zealot straw man. Oh, before Agile, nobody built projects around motivated people."
Where did the people after the Agile Manifesto tell their twelve points were the most novel thing since warm water and sliced bread? The fact that you can take any of those points apart and tell it's no novelty doesn't make it not part of the agile manifesto. Heck, I could tell the same about the twelve together! "Where's the fuss, aren't they obvious to anybody?"
"Wait - Agile invented the post-mortem? The dev cycle review? Feedback meetings? Progress reviews?"
Again, where's the claim that they invented them? Nowhere right?
"how did we do all that before Agile came around and told us it had value?"
Badly. That's why they felt the need to re-state what should have been obvious from the beginning. I can be generous and tell that was because, for those in command, the daily routines made the trees obscure the forest for them, or I can be cynic and tell management found a way of self-promotion in that even something as obvious as the agile manifesto was/is beyond their capabilities. One way or the other, it's good somebody have the inclination and clarity to put them black on white. That even after *that*, people don't see the obvious, and understand "agile" as being stand-ups or sprints, or unknowledgeable mid managers micromanaging the hell out of them, or wandering around in chaos without clear goals, or hiring a bunch of freshmans that barely know what 'git clone' means because they are cheaper and easy to cheat, or using Jira instead of Remedy is beyond my comprehension abilities.
"If you are dealing with contractual or cross-divisional politics, relying on face-to-face is incredibly naive."
So naive that this is basically the first thing the board of directors will do for anything that seems important, or one board of directors to another as soon as big money is involved.
Again, I'll repeat myself:
"The most efficient and effective method of
conveying information to and within a development
team is face-to-face conversation."
Have you *ever* really find other more efficient method? That even the best written down specs doesn't benefit from a face-to-face with their authors to clarify the most obscure/difficult points? And then, "most efficient" doesn't mean "only one".
"If your company has a technology or product related vision - you should not use Agile."
So which part exactly should this kind of company ditch out?
"Our highest priority is to satisfy the customer
through early and continuous delivery
of valuable software."
This one? "Minimally Viable Product" is not a fit concept for a product or technology related company? Really?
"Welcome changing requirements, even late in
development. Agile processes harness change for
the customer's competitive advantage."
Do you really think your Product Manager is really infallible? That he won't take advantage of knowing the resulting product/technology as it's going on to perfect his own mind and vision? Really?
"Deliver working software frequently, from a
couple of weeks to a couple of months, with a
preference to the shorter timescale."
See MVP. And then, if you can't produce a working piece within two months, rethink very carefully, since you probably don't understand it well enough as to put your time/money on it. If after deep thinking, you really think a given piece of your solution really takes that long, go ahead, on your own peril. These, after all, are just "principles", not Law from God carved in stone.
"Business people and developers must work
together daily throughout the project."
Do you think your great Product Manager should communicate his wonderful vision to the development minions and then disappear for a year? Really?
"Build projects around motivated individuals.
Give them the environment and support they need,
and trust them to get the job done."
I have problems even finding a viable alternative to the above one, so go figure!
"The most efficient and effective method of
conveying information to and within a development
team is face-to-face conversation."
Have you *ever* really find other more efficient method? That even the best written down specs doesn't benefit from a face-to-face with their authors to clarify the most obscure/difficult points? And then, "most efficient" doesn't mean "only one".
"Working software is the primary measure of progress."
Talked from the developer's perspective. Can there really be any other measure of progress?
"Agile processes promote sustainable development.
The sponsors, developers, and users should be able
to maintain a constant pace indefinitely."
Unless death march is your hobby, of course!
"Continuous attention to technical excellence
and good design enhances agility."
Really? who would figured that!
"Simplicity--the art of maximizing the amount
of work not done--is essential."
Ockham's razor in action. Valid for any complex project, isn't it?
"The best architectures, requirements, and designs
emerge from self-organizing teams."
Humm... one that can be argued... at least! But, now, think of the chances of your great Product Owner to achieve any goal if he doesn't manage to be recognized as an trust-worthy figure to follow. That's also self-organization.
"At regular intervals, the team reflects on how
to become more effective, then tunes and adjusts
its behavior accordingly."
Continous improvement anyone?
Now, really, you can tell that this is too general to be put in practice as-is but are you really arguing these are not (mutanda mutandi) desireable principles for basically *any* human endevour?
"I'd say currently about 90% of the industry has no right working in the field"
And I bet you belong to the blessed 10%, am I right?
"The flip side is that you never do any of the work that by nature is too big for a sprint"
I think we all see the problem about corporations trying to sell their "agile tools", management that go the "cargo cult" path without understanding what are they doing... But still there's something on this news and your comment clearly exposes it.
What the hell have "sprints" to do with agile so what you say could possible be true? Go, find the word "sprint" within the entire "agile manifesto", I challenge you*1.
So, yes, for the most part there *is* a problem about "agile this/agile that" when it's obvious there's no idea what "agile" is really about -and I don't mean obscure philosophy that needs years of meditation to find enlightenment, I mean a damn 25 lines document! Just go read it and assess how well your organization fits to those 25 lines.
*1 Yes, of course I know it says "Deliver working software frequently, from a couple of weeks to a couple of months, with a
preference to the shorter timescale." but it doesn't say "sprint", which is a technical world from a process framework. Follow the principles, and you'll be OK.
End of story.
"Tragedy of the Commons (Look it up; there is a good read on Wikipedia.)"
Exactly that. And then moronic egotism (its near relative). Just look at the entry: "Broken Economics of Open Source" but, then, what that "broken economics of Opern Source" means for the author? It basically ends up "I want tons of money from VC for something that will never have so much value form them" -it seems his target is "billionaire or nothing"... and even he has the guts to say "If I take out all the ways I know I can make money off of open source (consulting, services, and support), then there is no other way to make money that I know about". Simply brilliant, Monthy Python level, "what have the romans ever done for us?"
Now, what *should* be the proper way to make money out of open source? Well, it's right there, open to anybody to see, as long as they want to: software takes effort to write, but it doesn't take effort to replicate, then the answer is obvious: bill the "writing code" fact. In no part of any open source license says the code needs to be written for free; they are only about what you can do with that code *once* is already written (basically being "you can't control it anymore").
Now, the problem comes from the fact that people (not only corporations: people) very much prefer acquiring things they can already see better than things that are in the future. It's not only a thing of software: i.e.: most millionaires (specially unknowledged ones) will prefer paying, say, 5000$ for a pret-a-porter suit than 3000$ for a bespoke one and that says all.
Add to this the myopic greed of most corporations: right now I'm working for a big bank on an Openstack deployment with a strong backing from Red Hat (and quite a few in-house consultors from them). What's the best value those consultors bring? Being able to talk about our common problems with other Red Hat consultors working on very similar projects on other industries, even competing banks, and sharing the solutions they find. Of course, if we were clever, we could get rid of the middleman and just set our own communication channels with our competitors: there's even a MBA-buzzword for that: coopetition. But, of course too, we prefer paying money through our noses to Red Hat better than sharing efforts with our competition.
The very same idea could be expanded to the production of the software itself: take the common software requirements of Fortune 100 corporations: they could build an alliance and pay for the common software they need on themselves; it could be open source and developers could be payed for the part that takes the effort -it won't happen in a million years. Not because "open source is broken" but because *we* are broken.
"You believe what you see in movies and TV shows is reality in the US?"
No, but I believe public statistics: violent and car mortality in USA is basically the highest of first world countries, sometimes as much as an order of magnitude higher.
"I really can't imagine the degree of cowardice necessary to actually pay someone to inform an employer that you're quitting."
You know, the world doesn't end at USA borders. It's not cowardice but a different culture. In Japan, leaving a job, specially "just" because is better paid can be seen as a betrayal which, obviously is a dishonor.
Can you fathom how many people die in USA because reckless driving or not going out of an obviously impending fighting? Maybe others won't imagine the degree of cowardice necessary to prefer dying to being called "girlie" for "Miss Daisy-like driving" or fleeing away from an absolutely uncalled for fight.
"If a majority are revenue neutral then there wouldn't be massive inflation."
Even then you can have a inflation scalation: poor people are selective on their buyings vs average in a way directly tied to the basic food basket i.e.: more towards potatoes than cars. Increasing demand on those items will certainly grow their price up to the equilibrium point (that is, up to whatever the enhanced purse of those below minimum can afford) and, with this, everything else will come later. If you want for UBI to stay Basic, you'll need to increase it's value to counter inflation on those basic items and then go back to square one.
Being necessities, you cannot avoid buying them for as long as you have money, which basically locks you up to the maximum price they can afford: the more money you pump towards the poor's side, the more inflation will necessarily rise to absorb it.
"By giving my customer's customers more money in their pocket, it all comes back to me in the form of higher wages, higher profitability, and better returns on my stock options."
Because increasing demand from an unproductive pool won't increase prices by that exact amount. You increase access to mortages and houses prices rise; you increase access to education loans and tuition fees increase, but somehow you inject "free money" and it won't impact inflation. Yeah, sure.
"So, while technically a tax increase, actually revenue neutral to most people"
So there is no people that would be financially better with UBI than without it (including today's welfare)?
Because if there is people that are better off with UBI, and obviously they will be at the lowest side of the scale, they'll be buying more necessities than they do now. Increasing demand of necessities will mean inflation by the exact quantity of money injected.
This, in turn, will mean two things:
1) UBI will not be Basic anymore -inflation will mean that whatever UBI is, it doesn't allow to make ends meet.
2) Even if it's true that technically UBI is financially neutral for most people, in practice, due to inflation, most people will be worse off.
Now: who and why is pushing UBI? Isn't it curious that UBI -that is, "gifting money", is pushed by some big money (and a lot of gullible others)? Can it be that they know what the real answer for a future world without enough jobs for everybody should be, but it would make them financially worse, so they are pushing for a "capitalist" solution instead?
The worse case scenario in our future is not a civilization that can not productive enough to offer basic support for everybody, but a civilization that can not offer jobs for everybody to get their share on that productivity. The answer is obvious: do not tie access to goods to job-based incomes; the non-answer is also obvious: do not give "money for free". Money is not goods, just a proxy for goods... provided inflation doesn't eat it, which is the obvious output of UBI, and one that supports current statu quo of increasing inequality. No wonder those that would lose the more with a proper solution in place are pushing for the non-solution instead.
The real answer is not even a revolution: most countries already socialized one or more of army, police, education and healthcare, so it's just a matter of extending it to cover food and shelter too. It doesn't even mean "OMG THAT'S FUCKING COMMUNISM!!!" since state offering food and shelter for free doesn't necessarily mean is government the owner of those means of production if not wanted: just like government, even in USA, offers army for free to their citizens but still their fighter planes are bought to private companies, food and shelter could follow the same model.
So, please, let's stop this nonsense of UBI and let's start thinking on solutions that can work instead.
"Crypto currencies, the US Federal Reserve, why is it, they seem like much the same thing, hmm, I wonder. How different is bitcoin from the US dollar"
In that they both are fiat currencies? Yes, they are much the same.
Fiat currencies are supported by a collective illusion of value. *Working* fiat currencies have the means to *impose* the illusion to those that disbelieve it. In the case of the USA dollar that's USA's federal government, their tax collectors and their standing army. In the case of bitcoins is...?
"Gold has a much longer history as a store of value [...] Historically, gold has been a poor investment"
Which is only good, as that's exactly what we want good money to do: store and represent value, but not creating value on itself.
"Ok then, send them a Pinochet. He did wonders for Chile!"
Given that Pinochet was put in place by CIA ingerence, you can say that Pinochet is the result of the most advanced democracies in action.
"It is the temptation of governmental coercion that corrupts capitalists into non-capitalist cronies."
What you don't understand is that there are no "capitalists" to start with: all of them already are "non-capitalist cronies". The only difference is if they already got their desires or they are only on their way to them. Heck! that's they key of capitalism success: that it understands that 'man is wolf to man' and *tries* to use that to the system's (i.e. overall's well-being) advantage, keyword "tries".
If there's a strong government that would stop them from achieve their goals on a legal way, they take their money to bribe the government; if not, they take their money to just make it happen (i.e.: they build a private army -it's not just an imagination but a reality: a strong enough government? USA-style cronyism; not a strong enough government? Somalian-style war-lords... and, of course, all shades of gray in the middle).
Now, it's up to you to consider what you understand to be a desirable social contract and review how tools and processes are laid out to make it happen and, after that, check results to tune the system as it goes. That's the burden of democracy.
There is no conscription for doctors anywhere else, either.
"WTF are you talking about. The US military has not relied on conscription since the Vietnam era."
Do you even read? The US military is as much conscription-based as doctors in any socialized health-care first world country.
"The socialist systems are failing hard"
Thank you for letting me know. Let me think about it for a while...
Nope, even after your enlightment, I prefer my country's socialized health-care system -and its statistical output regarding not only life expectancy and population health variance, death rates at birth, etc. but also its per capita costs, to USA's any day of the week, twice on Sundays.
"Do they get to pick what you're having for supper or what products can be sold at the grocery store?"
Yes, at least, up to a point. In most countries there are in place one regulation or another regarding, i.e. the ability to sell (or not) tobacco, alcohol and/or prescription drugs.
"I suspect that if you tried to join the Socialist party in just about any country, the idea "capitalist economy with extensive social programs" would not be the platform of the party or one that they're likely to accept."
Where are you from? I say this because that's exactly what any Socialist party in any European country would support: "capitalist economy with extensive social programs". Maybe it is "communist party" what you are looking for, not Socialist. And even Communist parties, starting on the late 70's early 80's, had strong factions embracing what was called "eurocommunism" which is, basically, that: "capitalist economy with extensive social programs".
I think you should review your sources.
"The moment you conscript (yes) a doctor or teacher, and Require society to pay them a set wage, you'll find that they become in short supply, especially when considering the rest of the market is more or less open and free."
Except, of course, that's EXACTLY what happens in basically the whole of first world with the exception of USA without the ominous results you predict. By the way, even in USA, that's what happens to military personnel, which your country doesn't seem to be in short supply, either.
But, of course, don't let reality get in the way of your very well built rationalizations.
"Sounds good, who's going first?"
Yes.
And what's on second, I don't know's on third.
According to EU law you don't, either.
Exactly my thoughts:
"Could Electrically Stimulating Criminals' Brains Prevent Crime?"
It depends on the wattage.
"Why is automation better?"
It is not. Automation is only better up to the point is cheaper and less conflictive.
Right now, automation is always less conflictive and it's more expensive only where you can have human labour at semi-slavist conditions (i.e.: China). So, right now, you can avoid automation as long as you allow to downgrade your live status to Chinese standards. And even China-like status is in danger: automation is not going to be more expensive but the other way around, cheaper and more pervasive, and even in those places that it makes economic sense because of the extremely cheap human labour costs, these costs can only grow as it has been the trend since industrial revolution.
And then, what?