Is the World Ready for a Guaranteed Basic Income? // Now in Finland

Fun with supply and demand.
Fab Yolis
Frequent Poster
Posts: 1417
Joined: Sun Apr 27, 2014 12:46 am

Re: Is the World Ready for a Guaranteed Basic Income? // Now in Finland

Post by Fab Yolis » Mon Sep 26, 2016 1:13 am

Lance Kennedy wrote:Venerable

Right wing economics and ethics will disappear. Why? Because there is no alternative.
There is no "right wing" economics or "right wing" ethics. There is just economics and ethics.
I understand why you think as you do.
Clearly you don't.
What you fail to understand is that the way you think is rapidly becoming obsolete. When the wealth is generated by robots, and ordinary people have no opportunity to compete, there is only one alternative left that is ethical.
No there isn't - you have already admitted this!
There is no 'right' for people to be obscenely wealthy.
By what standards is one to be considered "obscenely" wealthy?? A person has a right to be as wealthy as they can be provided they don't obtain their wealth through violence and theft.
Currently, 67 people have as much wealth as the poorest half of the human species. That is 4,500,000,000 people have as much wealth as the richest 67. Those 67 do not NEED that much money. They could live in absolute luxury on 1% of what they have. Yet they deprive 4,500,000,000 people of a doubling in their standard of living by clinging to an obscene amount of wealth.That doubling will not make them rich. But it will make sure they can eat at least one good meal each day. The rich deprive them of this by clinging to an amount of money they can never spend. They do not DESERVE that wealth. No one does. It is an artifact of the current system of economics.
Unless you can demonstrate that those 67 people stole their wealth from those 4.5 billion, then you have no business casting judgement upon how much wealth they "need" or "deserve" to have. If you knew the first thing about economics, then you'd know that material prosperity is NOT merely a function of the availability of notional wealth!
"A lie can travel half way around the world while the truth is putting on its shoes."
- Mark Twain

The Terrifying Brilliance of the Islamic Memeplex

bobbo_the_Pragmatist
Has No Life
Posts: 18346
Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2015 9:39 am
Custom Title: After being pimped comes-----

Re: Is the World Ready for a Guaranteed Basic Income? // Now in Finland

Post by bobbo_the_Pragmatist » Mon Sep 26, 2016 1:46 am

[quote="Venerable Kwan Tam Woo"]There is no "right wing" economics or "right wing" ethics. There is just economics and ethics. [quote]
Right Wing Economics: Free market laissez faire with as little gubment regulation as possible and even where regulated, make it toothless, destroy unions, eliminate minimum wage, promote monopolies, push corporations are people with constitutional rights and free speech, flat tax rates...etc. I agree the notion of right wing ethics is rather twisted......

so, does your obtuseness on this subject denote the need to grow up or wake up?
Real Name: bobbo the contrarian existential pragmatic evangelical anti-theist and Class Warrior.
Asking: What is the most good for the most people?
Sample Issue: Should the Feds provide all babies with free diapers?

User avatar
ElectricMonk
Perpetual Poster
Posts: 4918
Joined: Thu Mar 26, 2015 6:21 pm
Custom Title: The Baby-eating Bishop

Re: Is the World Ready for a Guaranteed Basic Income? // Now in Finland

Post by ElectricMonk » Mon Sep 26, 2016 2:11 am

economic theory has always been political: just ask Marx.

User avatar
Lance Kennedy
Has No Life
Posts: 12764
Joined: Tue Mar 29, 2005 10:20 pm
Custom Title: Super Skeptic
Location: Paradise, New Zealand

Re: Is the World Ready for a Guaranteed Basic Income? // Now in Finland

Post by Lance Kennedy » Mon Sep 26, 2016 2:47 am

No person can become wealthy by his/her own work. Those who become megamillionnaires do so by hiring talented people and using their abilities to generate excess wealth. To a point, I have no problem with this, but there is a point where wealth becomes meaningless to the person who holds that wealth. If you have, say, $10 billion plus, then there is no way you can spend more than a fraction of that money on yourself. Yet hundreds of people are in that position and frantically exploiting others to try to get their ten billion to twenty. Why? Those kinds of people are those I call obscenely wealthy.

Bill Gates and Warren Buffett are two that are giving back a lot of what they made. That is what should be happening. No one NEEDS more than, say, $ 100 million. That amount will give you a lifetime of all the luxuries this world can offer.

User avatar
ElectricMonk
Perpetual Poster
Posts: 4918
Joined: Thu Mar 26, 2015 6:21 pm
Custom Title: The Baby-eating Bishop

Re: Is the World Ready for a Guaranteed Basic Income? // Now in Finland

Post by ElectricMonk » Mon Sep 26, 2016 5:08 am

Lance Kennedy wrote: No one NEEDS more than, say, $ 100 million. That amount will give you a lifetime of all the luxuries this world can offer.
That's right.

Beyond that, getting more money is about keeping score, nothing else.
But Buffet and Gates are trying to shift the bragging from wealth to charity - very admirable.

Fab Yolis
Frequent Poster
Posts: 1417
Joined: Sun Apr 27, 2014 12:46 am

Re: Is the World Ready for a Guaranteed Basic Income? // Now in Finland

Post by Fab Yolis » Mon Sep 26, 2016 5:35 am

ElectricMonk wrote:economic theory has always been political: just ask Marx.
And why in the {!#%@} would I do that?? Marx was a clown.
"A lie can travel half way around the world while the truth is putting on its shoes."
- Mark Twain

The Terrifying Brilliance of the Islamic Memeplex

Fab Yolis
Frequent Poster
Posts: 1417
Joined: Sun Apr 27, 2014 12:46 am

Re: Is the World Ready for a Guaranteed Basic Income? // Now in Finland

Post by Fab Yolis » Mon Sep 26, 2016 5:37 am

bobbo_the_Pragmatist wrote:
Venerable Kwan Tam Woo wrote:There is no "right wing" economics or "right wing" ethics. There is just economics and ethics.
Right Wing Economics: Free market laissez faire with as little gubment regulation as possible and even where regulated, make it toothless, destroy unions, eliminate minimum wage, promote monopolies, push corporations are people with constitutional rights and free speech, flat tax rates...etc. I agree the notion of right wing ethics is rather twisted......

so, does your obtuseness on this subject denote the need to grow up or wake up?
No Bobbo, it denotes that you are incapable of grasping - among other things - that economic policies and activities have the effects they do regardless of the ideological inclinations of those who implement them.
"A lie can travel half way around the world while the truth is putting on its shoes."
- Mark Twain

The Terrifying Brilliance of the Islamic Memeplex

Fab Yolis
Frequent Poster
Posts: 1417
Joined: Sun Apr 27, 2014 12:46 am

Re: Is the World Ready for a Guaranteed Basic Income? // Now in Finland

Post by Fab Yolis » Mon Sep 26, 2016 5:42 am

Lance Kennedy wrote:No person can become wealthy by his/her own work. Those who become megamillionnaires do so by hiring talented people and using their abilities to generate excess wealth. To a point, I have no problem with this, but there is a point where wealth becomes meaningless to the person who holds that wealth. If you have, say, $10 billion plus, then there is no way you can spend more than a fraction of that money on yourself. Yet hundreds of people are in that position and frantically exploiting others to try to get their ten billion to twenty. Why? Those kinds of people are those I call obscenely wealthy.
You do realise that they're not just sitting on all that wealth like Smaug the Dragon, right? They are buying properties, investing in businesses, hiring servants and personal assistants, setting up and donating to charities, patronising the arts and keeping whole business sectors beyond their own portfolios (e.g. luxury yacht makers, luxury car makers, fashion designers etc) economically viable.
No one NEEDS more than, say, $ 100 million. That amount will give you a lifetime of all the luxuries this world can offer.
It doesn't matter if they don't need it, what matters is whether they have earned it without violating the rights of others.
"A lie can travel half way around the world while the truth is putting on its shoes."
- Mark Twain

The Terrifying Brilliance of the Islamic Memeplex

User avatar
ElectricMonk
Perpetual Poster
Posts: 4918
Joined: Thu Mar 26, 2015 6:21 pm
Custom Title: The Baby-eating Bishop

Re: Is the World Ready for a Guaranteed Basic Income? // Now in Finland

Post by ElectricMonk » Mon Sep 26, 2016 5:48 am

Yes, but they have the ideological effects of those who came up with them. And they don't get implemented unless they align with the ideology of the government.
Sorry Woo , but you are just dead wrong that economics is apolitical.

About taking money from the rich: that's why we have governments to declare when we can violate some people's rights (like freedom of movement). It's perfectly legal to take everything above, say, $100 million if there is a law to that effect.

User avatar
Lance Kennedy
Has No Life
Posts: 12764
Joined: Tue Mar 29, 2005 10:20 pm
Custom Title: Super Skeptic
Location: Paradise, New Zealand

Re: Is the World Ready for a Guaranteed Basic Income? // Now in Finland

Post by Lance Kennedy » Mon Sep 26, 2016 8:12 am

Venerable Kwan Tam Woo wrote:

It doesn't matter if they don't need it, what matters is whether they have earned it without violating the rights of others.
Imagine there are two people on an island. Person A has a stockpile of food and supplies sufficient to keep him alive and fat for ten lifetimes. Person B is starving.

Now, person B asks person A for food, and person A says : "No! You have not earned it." So person B starves to death.

The venerable would say this is right and proper. I say the venerable's ideas are crap.

bobbo_the_Pragmatist
Has No Life
Posts: 18346
Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2015 9:39 am
Custom Title: After being pimped comes-----

Re: Is the World Ready for a Guaranteed Basic Income? // Now in Finland

Post by bobbo_the_Pragmatist » Mon Sep 26, 2016 10:01 am

Woo--please see moi and EM in support. Its called: common parlance. Math is Math. Economic is Economics. So far...so good. BUT==right wing economic interests push the policies listed and in common parlance is called Right Wing Economics or RWCPolicy. Stop being so dense.
Real Name: bobbo the contrarian existential pragmatic evangelical anti-theist and Class Warrior.
Asking: What is the most good for the most people?
Sample Issue: Should the Feds provide all babies with free diapers?

Fab Yolis
Frequent Poster
Posts: 1417
Joined: Sun Apr 27, 2014 12:46 am

Re: Is the World Ready for a Guaranteed Basic Income? // Now in Finland

Post by Fab Yolis » Wed Sep 28, 2016 7:00 am

Lance Kennedy wrote:
Venerable Kwan Tam Woo wrote:

It doesn't matter if they don't need it, what matters is whether they have earned it without violating the rights of others.
Imagine there are two people on an island. Person A has a stockpile of food and supplies sufficient to keep him alive and fat for ten lifetimes. Person B is starving.Now, person B asks person A for food, and person A says : "No! You have not earned it." So person B starves to death.
So in this ludicrous hypothetical scenario of yours, why have Person A and Person B ended up in that situation in the first place?
The venerable would say this is right and proper. I say the venerable's ideas are crap.
No, I'd say that your scenario is ludicrous, poorly thought-out and entirely hypothetical.
"A lie can travel half way around the world while the truth is putting on its shoes."
- Mark Twain

The Terrifying Brilliance of the Islamic Memeplex

Fab Yolis
Frequent Poster
Posts: 1417
Joined: Sun Apr 27, 2014 12:46 am

Re: Is the World Ready for a Guaranteed Basic Income? // Now in Finland

Post by Fab Yolis » Wed Sep 28, 2016 7:02 am

ElectricMonk wrote:Yes, but they have the ideological effects of those who came up with them.
No they don't. If they did then Venezuela wouldn't be the Apocalyptic basket case that it is right now and the Soviet Union would still be going strong.
About taking money from the rich: that's why we have governments to declare when we can violate some people's rights (like freedom of movement). It's perfectly legal to take everything above, say, $100 million if there is a law to that effect.
It doesn't matter if it's "legal". Anything can be "legal". Sending trainloads of people off to gas chambers simply because they are of a certain ethnicity can be "legal". What I care about is whether it's moral.
"A lie can travel half way around the world while the truth is putting on its shoes."
- Mark Twain

The Terrifying Brilliance of the Islamic Memeplex

User avatar
Gord
Obnoxious Weed
Posts: 34656
Joined: Wed Apr 29, 2009 2:44 am
Custom Title: prostrate spurge
Location: Transcona

Re: Is the World Ready for a Guaranteed Basic Income? // Now in Finland

Post by Gord » Wed Sep 28, 2016 8:34 am

Venerable Kwan Tam Woo wrote:It doesn't matter if it's "legal". Anything can be "legal". Sending trainloads of people off to gas chambers simply because they are of a certain ethnicity can be "legal". What I care about is whether it's moral.
Morality has a subjective component which can be used to convince people to do horrible things, and rights are a human invention to protect the weak but are frequently subverted to accommodate the greedy. You want to use both to your own advantage because you feel you deserve the world as you envision it, to the detriment of others.
"Knowledge grows through infinite timelessness" -- the random fictional Deepak Chopra quote site
"Imagine an ennobling of what could be" -- the New Age BS Generator site
"You are also taking my words out of context." -- Justin
"Nullius in verba" -- The Royal Society ["take nobody's word for it"]
#ANDAMOVIE
Is Trump in jail yet?

User avatar
ElectricMonk
Perpetual Poster
Posts: 4918
Joined: Thu Mar 26, 2015 6:21 pm
Custom Title: The Baby-eating Bishop

Re: Is the World Ready for a Guaranteed Basic Income? // Now in Finland

Post by ElectricMonk » Wed Sep 28, 2016 9:11 am

In a way, this is all a distraction.
As long as countries are mostly democratic it will be necessary to keep them at a level of living standard that is not too far from the average.

The problem (or others might say opportunity) of extreme wealth is what it will allow the super-wealthy to do soon, namely become medically immortal.
The advantages of being able to afford being an early adopter of technology, bioengeering, A.I. research and cybernetics in particluar, will become greater and greater.

the UBI is nothing but a way to keep the system going, on paper, while in fact it is being replaced.

Tom Palven
Has More Than 6K Posts
Posts: 6054
Joined: Wed Sep 03, 2008 12:29 am

Re: Is the World Ready for a Guaranteed Basic Income? // Now in Finland

Post by Tom Palven » Wed Sep 28, 2016 11:17 am

Lance Kennedy wrote:
Venerable Kwan Tam Woo wrote:

It doesn't matter if they don't need it, what matters is whether they have earned it without violating the rights of others.
Imagine there are two people on an island. Person A has a stockpile of food and supplies sufficient to keep him alive and fat for ten lifetimes. Person B is starving.

Now, person B asks person A for food, and person A says : "No! You have not earned it." So person B starves to death.

The venerable would say this is right and proper. I say the venerable's ideas are crap.
What about The Barhopper and his Aunt?

The Aunt spends most of her time working while Barhopper is partying, feeding slot machines, and getting several women pregnant.

Does that old parable have any merit?
If one can be taught to believe absurdities, one can commit atrocities. --Voltaire

User avatar
Lance Kennedy
Has No Life
Posts: 12764
Joined: Tue Mar 29, 2005 10:20 pm
Custom Title: Super Skeptic
Location: Paradise, New Zealand

Re: Is the World Ready for a Guaranteed Basic Income? // Now in Finland

Post by Lance Kennedy » Wed Sep 28, 2016 6:57 pm

Tom

The barhopper will have a lot less money than the aunt, and that is right and proper. But what if the barhopper is wealthy due to pure luck? Does it then 'deserve' to have that wealth? A lot of people are wealthy because of inheritances, luck, unethical activities, or simply massive exploitation of other people's talents. Do you think those people 'deserve' that wealth?

At the same time, there are always people who are poor due to circumstance. When I visited the Philippines, I was taken to the dock side at night in Manilla, and saw a collection of about 1000 young men waiting for recruiters. Those recruiters select hundreds each night to become crews on ships of all national flags. They recruit Filipinos because they are hard working, trustworthy, and willing to work their little asses off for peanuts. The men of the Philippines have to do this because decades of theft by central government has left them dirt poor. Do you think those guys 'deserve' this fate?

We get bigots like the venerable who think that being poor is the result of lack of virtue. Why are some people so damn ignorant?

User avatar
Paul Anthony
Veteran Poster
Posts: 2783
Joined: Sun Apr 23, 2006 9:23 pm
Custom Title: The other god
Location: The desert

Re: Is the World Ready for a Guaranteed Basic Income? // Now in Finland

Post by Paul Anthony » Wed Sep 28, 2016 11:13 pm

Lance Kennedy wrote:Tom

The barhopper will have a lot less money than the aunt, and that is right and proper. But what if the barhopper is wealthy due to pure luck? Does it then 'deserve' to have that wealth? A lot of people are wealthy because of inheritances, luck, unethical activities, or simply massive exploitation of other people's talents. Do you think those people 'deserve' that wealth?

At the same time, there are always people who are poor due to circumstance. When I visited the Philippines, I was taken to the dock side at night in Manilla, and saw a collection of about 1000 young men waiting for recruiters. Those recruiters select hundreds each night to become crews on ships of all national flags. They recruit Filipinos because they are hard working, trustworthy, and willing to work their little asses off for peanuts. The men of the Philippines have to do this because decades of theft by central government has left them dirt poor. Do you think those guys 'deserve' this fate?

We get bigots like the venerable who think that being poor is the result of lack of virtue. Why are some people so damn ignorant?
Wealth is relative. Comparing the wealth/poverty of a person in nation A with that of a person in nation B makes a great heart-wrenching story, but it is completely irrelevant. The same assinine argument is used to crucify western nations for building plants in third-world nations and paying workers a pittance compared to what US wages are. So what? All that matters is that they pay more than the going wage in that country. If they do, they have helped some people climb out of poverty.
People who say ALWAYS and NEVER are usually wrong, part of the time.
Science answers questions, Philosophy questions answers.
Make sense, not war.

Fab Yolis
Frequent Poster
Posts: 1417
Joined: Sun Apr 27, 2014 12:46 am

Re: Is the World Ready for a Guaranteed Basic Income? // Now in Finland

Post by Fab Yolis » Thu Sep 29, 2016 12:21 am

Gord wrote:
Venerable Kwan Tam Woo wrote:It doesn't matter if it's "legal". Anything can be "legal". Sending trainloads of people off to gas chambers simply because they are of a certain ethnicity can be "legal". What I care about is whether it's moral.
Morality has a subjective component which can be used to convince people to do horrible things,
The subjective component of morality is peoples' perceptions of it, which can be warped to make them do horrible things. But the very fact that we are even speaking of these "horrible things" indicates that morality is fundamentally objective in nature; sending people off to death camps just because they are of a certain ethnicity is wrong regardless of what the surrounding culture of the time has to say about it.
and rights are a human invention to protect the weak but are frequently subverted to accommodate the greedy.


They are not a human invention, they are a natural practical consequence of cause-and-effect.
You want to use both to your own advantage because you feel you deserve the world as you envision it, to the detriment of others.
That's your (baseless) opinion.
"A lie can travel half way around the world while the truth is putting on its shoes."
- Mark Twain

The Terrifying Brilliance of the Islamic Memeplex

Fab Yolis
Frequent Poster
Posts: 1417
Joined: Sun Apr 27, 2014 12:46 am

Re: Is the World Ready for a Guaranteed Basic Income? // Now in Finland

Post by Fab Yolis » Thu Sep 29, 2016 12:25 am

Lance Kennedy wrote: We get bigots like the venerable who think that being poor is the result of lack of virtue. Why are some people so damn ignorant?
We get mendacious clowns like you who launch ridiculous slanderous accusations about what other posters think. Why are some people so damn ignorant?
"A lie can travel half way around the world while the truth is putting on its shoes."
- Mark Twain

The Terrifying Brilliance of the Islamic Memeplex

User avatar
Lance Kennedy
Has No Life
Posts: 12764
Joined: Tue Mar 29, 2005 10:20 pm
Custom Title: Super Skeptic
Location: Paradise, New Zealand

Re: Is the World Ready for a Guaranteed Basic Income? // Now in Finland

Post by Lance Kennedy » Thu Sep 29, 2016 2:49 am

Paul Anthony wrote:
Wealth is relative. Comparing the wealth/poverty of a person in nation A with that of a person in nation B makes a great heart-wrenching story, but it is completely irrelevant.
Not true.

There are absolute standards of poverty. If a family cannot feed itself, and they suffer malnutrition as a result, that is poverty, in any country. There are still a billion people in many third world nations who have no food security. That means that they cannot be sure they will be able to eat tomorrow. That is poverty, and it matters not which country they are in.

bobbo_the_Pragmatist
Has No Life
Posts: 18346
Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2015 9:39 am
Custom Title: After being pimped comes-----

Re: Is the World Ready for a Guaranteed Basic Income? // Now in Finland

Post by bobbo_the_Pragmatist » Thu Sep 29, 2016 5:23 am

Paul Anthony wrote:Wealth is relative. Comparing the wealth/poverty of a person in nation A with that of a person in nation B makes a great heart-wrenching story, but it is completely irrelevant.
See Lance's excellent response...but then THINK about your position, how you reached it, how you did not pause to reflect at all upon it. Your constant use of extreme or absolutist terms like "completely." Only a moments pause with what you know and think yourself would tell you that "completely" is completely inaccurate..as most absolutes are. This affects and colors your thinking and emotions making you prey to sheep herding of all types. No problem at all with that being your "first thought" but then for Christ Sake READ what you are about to post and edit with your own good brains. You keep missing that final step.

Paul Anthony wrote:The same assinine argument is used to crucify western nations for building plants in third-world nations and paying workers a pittance compared to what US wages are.
I agree, the argument is asinine. Much like your own, it is only the equal and opposite response for those who are just like you, just on the other side. Although...this may be another of your made up BS Straw Arguments. I don't think the common argument is how much they are paid compared to US wages, but rather what kind of life style they can have in their own country with those wages. "Wage Slaves." You work full time, 7 days a week, live in a single room with 8 other people, eat at the factory, and get 1 day off per year for the New Year or whatever and 5 days off every 3 years to visit your village...and thats about it. Is the comparison of wages asinine or not?



Paul Anthony wrote: All that matters is that they pay more than the going wage in that country. If they do, they have helped some people climb out of poverty.
Was that the goal? Ha, ha. Pay just enough money so they don't die on the job? Well, I'll take your word for it. What would it do economically/trade wise/plus or minus for competing American Labor if the wage slaves were paid MORE? Can you stretch that far?

Why are you a champion of the race to the bottom labor/trade policies that can only result in grinding poverty for all involved?
Real Name: bobbo the contrarian existential pragmatic evangelical anti-theist and Class Warrior.
Asking: What is the most good for the most people?
Sample Issue: Should the Feds provide all babies with free diapers?

User avatar
Gord
Obnoxious Weed
Posts: 34656
Joined: Wed Apr 29, 2009 2:44 am
Custom Title: prostrate spurge
Location: Transcona

Re: Is the World Ready for a Guaranteed Basic Income? // Now in Finland

Post by Gord » Thu Sep 29, 2016 9:31 am

Venerable Kwan Tam Woo wrote:
Gord wrote:
Venerable Kwan Tam Woo wrote:It doesn't matter if it's "legal". Anything can be "legal". Sending trainloads of people off to gas chambers simply because they are of a certain ethnicity can be "legal". What I care about is whether it's moral.
Morality has a subjective component which can be used to convince people to do horrible things,
The subjective component of morality is peoples' perceptions of it, which can be warped to make them do horrible things. But the very fact that we are even speaking of these "horrible things" indicates that morality is fundamentally objective in nature; sending people off to death camps just because they are of a certain ethnicity is wrong regardless of what the surrounding culture of the time has to say about it.
The objective quality of morality is in human nature. If humans feel it is morally correct to send people off to death camps just because they are of a certain ethnicity, then for those people it is morally correct. It can still be morally incorrect for other people, myself included. I can even feel it is so morally incorrect that those other people need to be stopped in ways I would find morally repugnant if I didn't feel those other people were so morally repugnant. That's and expression of the subjective component which can be used to convince people to do horrible things.
and rights are a human invention to protect the weak but are frequently subverted to accommodate the greedy.

They are not a human invention, they are a natural practical consequence of cause-and-effect.
Nowhere else in nature to we find "rights" arising. They are a human invention, just like law. They may be a "natural practical consequence of cause-and-effect", but so what? I never claimed they were magically created by a divine being.
You want to use both to your own advantage because you feel you deserve the world as you envision it, to the detriment of others.
That's your (baseless) opinion.
It's actually pretty clear. Many people feel the same way you do, regardless of their political or economical stance.
"Knowledge grows through infinite timelessness" -- the random fictional Deepak Chopra quote site
"Imagine an ennobling of what could be" -- the New Age BS Generator site
"You are also taking my words out of context." -- Justin
"Nullius in verba" -- The Royal Society ["take nobody's word for it"]
#ANDAMOVIE
Is Trump in jail yet?

User avatar
Lance Kennedy
Has No Life
Posts: 12764
Joined: Tue Mar 29, 2005 10:20 pm
Custom Title: Super Skeptic
Location: Paradise, New Zealand

Re: Is the World Ready for a Guaranteed Basic Income? // Now in Finland

Post by Lance Kennedy » Thu Sep 29, 2016 6:58 pm

If we were to generate a "universal" moral code, the most basic principle would be something like this.

"Thou shalt not do anything to harm thy fellow human."

And the corollary would also be applied.

"Thou shalt help thy fellow humans wherever sufficient need is perceived, and it is possible and practical."

You might also add to that clauses relating to higher animals and the natural environment. Eventually, if we discover aliens, they might be added to that moral code.

Seen this way, simple morality is not too difficult, and does not have to involve religion.

Tom Palven
Has More Than 6K Posts
Posts: 6054
Joined: Wed Sep 03, 2008 12:29 am

Re: Is the World Ready for a Guaranteed Basic Income? // Now in Finland

Post by Tom Palven » Fri Sep 30, 2016 2:19 pm

Lance Kennedy wrote:Tom

The barhopper will have a lot less money than the aunt, and that is right and proper. But what if the barhopper is wealthy due to pure luck? Does it then 'deserve' to have that wealth? A lot of people are wealthy because of inheritances, luck, unethical activities, or simply massive exploitation of other people's talents. Do you think those people 'deserve' that wealth?

At the same time, there are always people who are poor due to circumstance. When I visited the Philippines, I was taken to the dock side at night in Manilla, and saw a collection of about 1000 young men waiting for recruiters. Those recruiters select hundreds each night to become crews on ships of all national flags. They recruit Filipinos because they are hard working, trustworthy, and willing to work their little asses off for peanuts. The men of the Philippines have to do this because decades of theft by central government has left them dirt poor. Do you think those guys 'deserve' this fate?

We get bigots like the venerable who think that being poor is the result of lack of virtue. Why are some people so damn ignorant?
Scotsman Adam Smith published An Inquiry into the Nature and Causes of the Wealth of Nations, usually called The Wealth of Nations in 1776.

If he were alive today he would ponder over and make inquiries into why Filipinos on average have a lower standard of living than people in some other countries.

Running this situation though my Smith-loving filters I suspect that it has something to do with free trade.

Back in the days when the Philippines were a Spanish colony, only permitted to trade with Spain, the answer was obvious.

What's the problem now?

When we look at the economic basket case India that has a billion people and lots of natural resources along with a huge bureaucracy, versus China with similar resources but a recently-emerged stunningly vibrant economy we might glimpse a reason. My filters tell me that it's due to the free market economic achievements of Deng Xiaoping and his followers.

I suspect some kind of barrier to free markets is holding the Philippines back. It could be a combination of bureaucracy and corruption, or something else.

I'll leave you with a few words quoted from Adam Smith that may raise him in your esteem:

"...the wretched spirit of monopoly."

"Science is a great antidote to superstition."


Let me add that The Wealth of Nations is a large and ponderous work. It is interesting to leaf through, but for easy-reading pleasure with all the essence of Smith including his earlier work, A Theory of Moral Sentiments I recommend the small book Adam Smith: The Man and His Works by E. G. West
If one can be taught to believe absurdities, one can commit atrocities. --Voltaire

User avatar
ElectricMonk
Perpetual Poster
Posts: 4918
Joined: Thu Mar 26, 2015 6:21 pm
Custom Title: The Baby-eating Bishop

Re: Is the World Ready for a Guaranteed Basic Income? // Now in Finland

Post by ElectricMonk » Fri Sep 30, 2016 3:26 pm

I don't think it's China's free market that makes the difference, but rather its protectionism, its fixed currency and its massive subsidies of nascent industries and research. China also makes it very attractive for its citizens to study abroad and come back later.

India basically expects the Western World to come in and plant subsidiaries (or at least call-centers). It also loses its best and brightest to other countries.

User avatar
Paul Anthony
Veteran Poster
Posts: 2783
Joined: Sun Apr 23, 2006 9:23 pm
Custom Title: The other god
Location: The desert

Re: Is the World Ready for a Guaranteed Basic Income? // Now in Finland

Post by Paul Anthony » Fri Sep 30, 2016 6:15 pm

Lance Kennedy wrote:
Paul Anthony wrote:
Wealth is relative. Comparing the wealth/poverty of a person in nation A with that of a person in nation B makes a great heart-wrenching story, but it is completely irrelevant.
Not true.

There are absolute standards of poverty. If a family cannot feed itself, and they suffer malnutrition as a result, that is poverty, in any country. There are still a billion people in many third world nations who have no food security. That means that they cannot be sure they will be able to eat tomorrow. That is poverty, and it matters not which country they are in.
While what you say is true, your solution is false. If every single person in the US took a pay cut, it would not make anyone in a third world country wealthier. How can you support a minimum wage increase and still think we are responsible for poverty elsewhere in the world? If wages everywhere else in the world matched the $15/hr some think is fair in the US, everyone would pay more for most everything they buy...making everyone in the West poorer. Is that your solution to poverty?
People who say ALWAYS and NEVER are usually wrong, part of the time.
Science answers questions, Philosophy questions answers.
Make sense, not war.

User avatar
Lance Kennedy
Has No Life
Posts: 12764
Joined: Tue Mar 29, 2005 10:20 pm
Custom Title: Super Skeptic
Location: Paradise, New Zealand

Re: Is the World Ready for a Guaranteed Basic Income? // Now in Finland

Post by Lance Kennedy » Fri Sep 30, 2016 7:59 pm

Paul

There have been several very interesting experiments/programs in third world nations over the past few years. In one program, loans were made available to third world women, of up to $US 100, without collateral. The end result was amazing. Impoverished families set up small businesses. Goat for milk. Hens for eggs. Spinning wheels. etc. A small sum of money made a massive difference.

IN a second program, families were given, with no conditions attached, similar sums of money. The results were not quite as good, because a lot of the people getting the money were male, and drank the proceeds. However, more than half ended up permanently improving their lives by using the money constructively. As a general rule, though with lots of exceptions, people are smart, including those in third world nations. People WANT to make their lives better and will accept the opportunity to do so.

No one is suggesting taking money off ordinary Americans. However, there are some hundreds of billionnaires (not just in the USA), and a decent donation from each of them would make a massive cut in global poverty. Why is it that 67 people have as much wealth as the poorest 3,500,000,000 put together? I can guarantee that it is not because those 67 have some special virtue. More likely because they are psychopathic exploiters??

User avatar
Paul Anthony
Veteran Poster
Posts: 2783
Joined: Sun Apr 23, 2006 9:23 pm
Custom Title: The other god
Location: The desert

Re: Is the World Ready for a Guaranteed Basic Income? // Now in Finland

Post by Paul Anthony » Fri Sep 30, 2016 9:18 pm

Lance Kennedy wrote:Paul

There have been several very interesting experiments/programs in third world nations over the past few years. In one program, loans were made available to third world women, of up to $US 100, without collateral. The end result was amazing. Impoverished families set up small businesses. Goat for milk. Hens for eggs. Spinning wheels. etc. A small sum of money made a massive difference.
Yes, and we're saying the same thing. You considered paying workers more than the prevailing wage as wrong because they still made less than US workers. It is not wrong if it raises their standard of living. What is wrong is claiming that they are still poor if they earn less than people in the US. A little money can buy a lot more in a third-world country. The cost of living is lower. So, comparing their earnings to ours is comparing apples to oranges. In every case, it matters not how many dollars you have. What matters is what those dollars can buy.
People who say ALWAYS and NEVER are usually wrong, part of the time.
Science answers questions, Philosophy questions answers.
Make sense, not war.

User avatar
Lance Kennedy
Has No Life
Posts: 12764
Joined: Tue Mar 29, 2005 10:20 pm
Custom Title: Super Skeptic
Location: Paradise, New Zealand

Re: Is the World Ready for a Guaranteed Basic Income? // Now in Finland

Post by Lance Kennedy » Fri Sep 30, 2016 10:15 pm

Careful Paul. You are erecting strawmen. I never said you had to pay foreign workers an American wage. If a person earns $5 per day working for a local employer, and $10 per day working for an American manufacturer, then obviously he/she is better off even though that is a lot less than he/she would earn in any developed country. Nor do I claim they are still poor if they earn less than they would in the USA.

My claim is simple. Those with massive wealth should be making massive donations to help those who are truly poor. And with a billion people who do not know where their next meal is coming from, there are lots who are genuinely poor.

bobbo_the_Pragmatist
Has No Life
Posts: 18346
Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2015 9:39 am
Custom Title: After being pimped comes-----

Re: Is the World Ready for a Guaranteed Basic Income? // Now in Finland

Post by bobbo_the_Pragmatist » Sat Oct 01, 2016 2:09 am

Paul Anthony wrote:Yes, and we're saying the same thing. You considered paying workers more than the prevailing wage as wrong because they still made less than US workers. It is not wrong if it raises their standard of living. What is wrong is claiming that they are still poor if they earn less than people in the US. A little money can buy a lot more in a third-world country. The cost of living is lower. So, comparing their earnings to ours is comparing apples to oranges. In every case, it matters not how many dollars you have. What matters is what those dollars can buy.
Paulie: have you read the many articles on why "facts" don't change the (conservative) minds of people convinced otherwise??? YOU are one such example. Everything you say here is refuted in my answer to you above. You post as if you never read it. There is no "ratchet" in the way you gather information on which to build your reflections and opinion/values generation. Further you again show you can't deal with reality/opposing points of view/new and different facts, so you create STRAW MEN to argue against all the while thinking you are in the game.

Silly Hooman. Good Republican voter.

Be honest, Be direct. Learn. Grow.

Note: because I know what you are "thinking", you don't have to agree with what I wrote above, but FOR YOUR OWN BENEFIT, you ought to realize the information provided. BASICS.
Real Name: bobbo the contrarian existential pragmatic evangelical anti-theist and Class Warrior.
Asking: What is the most good for the most people?
Sample Issue: Should the Feds provide all babies with free diapers?

User avatar
Paul Anthony
Veteran Poster
Posts: 2783
Joined: Sun Apr 23, 2006 9:23 pm
Custom Title: The other god
Location: The desert

Re: Is the World Ready for a Guaranteed Basic Income? // Now in Finland

Post by Paul Anthony » Sat Oct 01, 2016 6:55 pm

To those of you who lament the poverty in the world, here is a proposition:

If you earn 10X that of a third-world citizen, write a check for 9X your net worth and send it to a poor country. If you are not willing to do that, stop preaching to the rest of us.
People who say ALWAYS and NEVER are usually wrong, part of the time.
Science answers questions, Philosophy questions answers.
Make sense, not war.

User avatar
Lance Kennedy
Has No Life
Posts: 12764
Joined: Tue Mar 29, 2005 10:20 pm
Custom Title: Super Skeptic
Location: Paradise, New Zealand

Re: Is the World Ready for a Guaranteed Basic Income? // Now in Finland

Post by Lance Kennedy » Sat Oct 01, 2016 7:10 pm

Paul

Not realistic, as you should know. I have sent a lot of my earnings to third world countries over the years, but like most people, I am a wee bit selfish, and most of what I have earned, I kept. But very few would have been as generous as me.

However, there is a point of pure silliness in wealth. If you have a billion dollars, you cannot spend more than a tiny fraction on yourself and your family. So instead of playing games with money, why not use all that surplus, as Bill Gates is doing, to help people.

User avatar
Paul Anthony
Veteran Poster
Posts: 2783
Joined: Sun Apr 23, 2006 9:23 pm
Custom Title: The other god
Location: The desert

Re: Is the World Ready for a Guaranteed Basic Income? // Now in Finland

Post by Paul Anthony » Sat Oct 01, 2016 9:47 pm

Lance Kennedy wrote:Paul

Not realistic, as you should know. I have sent a lot of my earnings to third world countries over the years, but like most people, I am a wee bit selfish, and most of what I have earned, I kept. But very few would have been as generous as me.

However, there is a point of pure silliness in wealth. If you have a billion dollars, you cannot spend more than a tiny fraction on yourself and your family. So instead of playing games with money, why not use all that surplus, as Bill Gates is doing, to help people.
Of course it's not realistic. Neither is deciding how much other people should give. If you've been charitable, good for you. That was a personal choice, made under no duress, as charity should be. No one has a right to tell you what to do with your money. Likewise, no one has a right to tell others what to do with their money, no matter how much they have.

If they have earned it honestly they have the same freedom to spend it or give it away as you do. If they earned it dishonestly, charge them with a crime and punish them accordingly, but merely having more money than you is not in itself a crime. Don't treat the wealthy as criminals unless you can prove it. If you can't, then don't presume the right to reduce their freedom to do with their money whatever they wish.
People who say ALWAYS and NEVER are usually wrong, part of the time.
Science answers questions, Philosophy questions answers.
Make sense, not war.

User avatar
Lance Kennedy
Has No Life
Posts: 12764
Joined: Tue Mar 29, 2005 10:20 pm
Custom Title: Super Skeptic
Location: Paradise, New Zealand

Re: Is the World Ready for a Guaranteed Basic Income? // Now in Finland

Post by Lance Kennedy » Sat Oct 01, 2016 10:03 pm

It is not a matter of not having the right. It is a matter of not having the power.

How much money does a person need. We would all like lots, but how much is enough? My view is that even a greedy person should not need more than $ 100 million, since that would be enough to supply each and every reasonable luxury to you and your family. The truth is that billionnaires do not use more than a tiny fraction of their wealth on themselves. So why do they hoard their money as if their lives depended on it? There is no rational reason.

User avatar
Paul Anthony
Veteran Poster
Posts: 2783
Joined: Sun Apr 23, 2006 9:23 pm
Custom Title: The other god
Location: The desert

Re: Is the World Ready for a Guaranteed Basic Income? // Now in Finland

Post by Paul Anthony » Sun Oct 02, 2016 1:42 am

Lance Kennedy wrote:It is not a matter of not having the right. It is a matter of not having the power.

How much money does a person need. We would all like lots, but how much is enough? My view is that even a greedy person should not need more than $ 100 million, since that would be enough to supply each and every reasonable luxury to you and your family. The truth is that billionnaires do not use more than a tiny fraction of their wealth on themselves. So why do they hoard their money as if their lives depended on it? There is no rational reason.
Here is the fallacy in your thinking: You can only think of two things to do with money, either spend it or hoard it.

Erase the image of Scrooge McDuck counting his money. Millionaires and billionaires do not hoard piles of cash. They invest what they don't spend. If they spent it as fast as they made it, they would very soon cease to be billionaires. Successful companies do not come into being without funding. Jobs don't come into being without the formation of companies that hire employees. These things happen because people who have money invest it.

How much money does a person need? That depends on what sort of business he wants to create. Bill Gates is giving a lot of his money to charity now, but if he had given most of it away as soon as he had more than he intended to spend on himself, there would be no Microsoft Corp.
People who say ALWAYS and NEVER are usually wrong, part of the time.
Science answers questions, Philosophy questions answers.
Make sense, not war.

User avatar
Lance Kennedy
Has No Life
Posts: 12764
Joined: Tue Mar 29, 2005 10:20 pm
Custom Title: Super Skeptic
Location: Paradise, New Zealand

Re: Is the World Ready for a Guaranteed Basic Income? // Now in Finland

Post by Lance Kennedy » Sun Oct 02, 2016 2:20 am

Paul

You are telling me nothing I do not know. But you are wrong in suggesting that all surplus funds must be invested. Those billionnaires have a cash flow of mega millions each year, and the idea that it all must be reinvested is just wrong. Used to help, rather than build empires, it would do far more good.

Besides which, if used to help those who are impoverished, that is another kind of investment, and will build something good. Ask yourself. Is $5 spent as part of the sum required to start up a new insurance company the best use for that $5, or spending it on an insecticide impregnated mosquito net, to prevent a child getting malaria? Which is going to deliver the greater long term returns as an investment?

User avatar
Paul Anthony
Veteran Poster
Posts: 2783
Joined: Sun Apr 23, 2006 9:23 pm
Custom Title: The other god
Location: The desert

Re: Is the World Ready for a Guaranteed Basic Income? // Now in Finland

Post by Paul Anthony » Sun Oct 02, 2016 2:36 am

Lance Kennedy wrote:Paul

You are telling me nothing I do not know. But you are wrong in suggesting that all surplus funds must be invested. Those billionnaires have a cash flow of mega millions each year, and the idea that it all must be reinvested is just wrong. Used to help, rather than build empires, it would do far more good.

Besides which, if used to help those who are impoverished, that is another kind of investment, and will build something good. Ask yourself. Is $5 spent as part of the sum required to start up a new insurance company the best use for that $5, or spending it on an insecticide impregnated mosquito net, to prevent a child getting malaria? Which is going to deliver the greater long term returns as an investment?
Depends on how important that reinvestment in the company is to the continuation of the business. Neither you nor I are qualified to make that determination, so...you see it your way and I'll see it mine.
People who say ALWAYS and NEVER are usually wrong, part of the time.
Science answers questions, Philosophy questions answers.
Make sense, not war.

User avatar
Lance Kennedy
Has No Life
Posts: 12764
Joined: Tue Mar 29, 2005 10:20 pm
Custom Title: Super Skeptic
Location: Paradise, New Zealand

Re: Is the World Ready for a Guaranteed Basic Income? // Now in Finland

Post by Lance Kennedy » Sun Oct 02, 2016 3:03 am

Paul Anthony wrote:
Depends on how important that reinvestment in the company is to the continuation of the business.
Not to the business. To the greater good of humanity as a whole. The point is that the megabillionnaire does not need it. He or she already has a thousand times as much money as needed. Practically speaking, it matters not a damn to him or her whether his/her profits are up or down that year. There will be no sacrifices required.

But to a child that may die of malaria if that $5 is not spent on the proper net, that is extraordinarily important. And the ongoing health of that child will return, in hard cold cash, far more that the $5 put into a lesser investment.

bobbo_the_Pragmatist
Has No Life
Posts: 18346
Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2015 9:39 am
Custom Title: After being pimped comes-----

Re: Is the World Ready for a Guaranteed Basic Income? // Now in Finland

Post by bobbo_the_Pragmatist » Sun Oct 02, 2016 12:24 pm

Paul Anthony wrote:To those of you who lament the poverty in the world, here is a proposition:

If you earn 10X that of a third-world citizen, write a check for 9X your net worth and send it to a poor country. If you are not willing to do that, stop preaching to the rest of us.
Another fractured non-response. I don't consider myself a Nationalist, but I think the needs here at home are much more deserving of any contribution I might make than the unknown third world. I don't want to study the issue sufficiently to know all the details of what investment/donation to make. OUR gubment providing for the commonweal of OUR own citizens does however strike me as very high on the list of responsibilities, or even opportunities.

STRUCTURAL support...not the willy nilly comes as it goes personal effort...but a society I can be proud of: taking care of its own.

Its a simple proposition that you miss: what is the better goal of a society, to benefit the AlreadyTooRich or to benefit more generally the entire society? If you are willing to sacrifice yourself to dog whistles, how about your kiddies????

All kinds of economic analyses show that there are sweet spots to the curves. Too little or too much taxation or anything else leads to inefficiencies. You got to be twisted to think the policies of the USA for the last 30 years have not been "inefficient." We need change, fair and balanced... not more failed trickle down false promises.
Real Name: bobbo the contrarian existential pragmatic evangelical anti-theist and Class Warrior.
Asking: What is the most good for the most people?
Sample Issue: Should the Feds provide all babies with free diapers?