|
wateroverfire posted:Any kind of scarcity will tend to create a market. Or you can change some settings on the Citizen App and allocate less of what you don't want in order to raise your cap for Mountain Dew.  Like we're using systems from 1700-1800s or earlier and saying these are the best we can do? Idk. V. Illych L. posted:non-neoliberal UBI would take a revolution or something, and stopping at UBI seems kind of unambitious in that case Is a fair point I think although it varies country to country I think also. Moridin920 fucked around with this message at 19:44 on May 30, 2019 |
#
?
May 30, 2019 19:42
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 29, 2024 07:38 |
|
|
V. Illych L. posted:non-neoliberal UBI would take a revolution or something, and stopping at UBI seems kind of unambitious in that case You could say the exact same thing about universal healthcare if not for the fact we'd already done it.
|
|
#
?
May 30, 2019 19:51
|
|
|
I'm not sure how this hasn't already been addressed in the last several pages, but it's incredibly salient so let's put it out there. The problem with UBI is that giving everyone the same amount of money does very little to fix unequal outcomes. The reason universal health care is much, much better in terms of achieving the goals that it seems most people in the thread share is because it is inherently a benefit of UNequal value, but structured in such a way that it is the MOST valuable to people at the BOTTOM of the heap and LEAST valuable to people at the TOP. In the US, the people most likely to have large medical bills are people who have to use the ER or who have chronic conditions, including conditions that prevent you from performing labor. Those people are typically disadvantaged in other ways, and therefore are most in need. By contrast, even ignoring whatever arguments about means-testing or whathaveyou, UBI does not solve the fundamental problem of people at the bottom having to spend a larger portion of their income or savings to solve small problems. You can restructure it however you like, but the power of the word Universal depends on it being a visible benefit to the entire voting public, and universal healthcare does a much better job of threading the needle between being visible to everyone while being more useful to the people in need than any implementation of "check in the mail" could be. A policy to expand the availability of free meals or improve the quality/decrease the cost/increase availability of public transportation would do a lot more than UBI ever could for exactly the same reasons. Even though a meal might cost the same to make for anyone, the people most likely to take the effort to use them are the poorest, and similarly even though anyone might benefit from another method of transit, the people who stand to benefit the most are those with reduced personal mobility through either disability or just lack of car ownership. BougieBitch fucked around with this message at 19:56 on May 30, 2019 |
|
#
?
May 30, 2019 19:53
|
|
|
I honestly can't believe it has to be explained to ostensible radicals why giving people Yangbucks isn't an equivalent to de-commoditizing one of the largest sectors of the economy.
|
|
#
?
May 30, 2019 19:55
|
|
|
How does giving everyone like 5 grand a year not disproportionately benefit the people at the bottom in exactly the same way.
|
|
#
?
May 30, 2019 19:56
|
|
|
OwlFancier posted:How does giving everyone like 5 grand a year not disproportionately benefit the people at the bottom in exactly the same way. Because someone making 100k already gets to put it in their bank account and collect interest while someone making 20k has to spend it on car repairs or w/e. The reason health care is different is because you actually AREN'T giving everyone 5k, you are giving a poor person 10k and a rich person 3k. In situations where the individual is responsible for their own health care, the cost of the policies is not the same, even if they cover the same procedure. Poor people are universally put into "high risk" pools for health insurance, or car insurance, or any other such scheme. Even if you want to pretend that interest is less than inflation, the benefit of this policy comes from imposing a corresponding TAX on the wealthy, not from the checks sent out. If US politics is any indication, the tax would get repealed even if the checks were still sent out, taking the net effect back to nothing. Taking that same 5k/person and putting it towards public transit or any other equalizing program would be a better use of the government money for the stated end-goal
|
|
#
?
May 30, 2019 20:02
|
|
|
Moridin920 posted:Or you can change some settings on the Citizen App and allocate less of what you don't want in order to raise your cap for Mountain Dew. If there are literally no constraints then ok I guess but then what are we even able to talk about? Like... is everything 3d printed out of nanite paste or something such that all goods are equally producable and people just have some monthly allocation of nanite paste? edit: Because, just for instance, someone might have a surplus of nanite paste because they just don't consume as much but they might want extra handjobs or whatever and then there will become a market for THAT. Unless handjobs are also available on government Amazon. edit2: Maybe everyone will have a robot for that, come to think of it. wateroverfire fucked around with this message at 20:13 on May 30, 2019 |
|
#
?
May 30, 2019 20:03
|
|
|
OwlFancier posted:You could say the exact same thing about universal healthcare if not for the fact we'd already done it. no, you actually couldn't because the NHS is not an intrinsically neoliberal institution it is, in fact, intrinsically not neoliberal, which is why they're trying to attack it
|
|
#
?
May 30, 2019 20:03
|
|
|
V. Illych L. posted:no, you actually couldn't because the NHS is not an intrinsically neoliberal institution What are you even on about? My entire contention is that you can make non neolib poo poo, you can't rebut that by saying "but look at the non neolib poo poo we made that proves it's impossible??????"
|
|
#
?
May 30, 2019 20:05
|
|
|
OwlFancier posted:What are you even on about? My entire contention is that you can make non neolib poo poo, you can't rebut that by saying "but look at the non neolib poo poo we made that proves it's impossible??????" look, individual assistance to realise one's agency in a market system is about the purest expression of neoliberal policy you can get, taking a massive and important part of everyone's lives out of the market is... not what do you think neoliberalism even is
|
|
#
?
May 30, 2019 20:07
|
|
|
I don't think UBI is able to address all peoples' individual problems and all social problems. Nor is it really reasonable to expect any policy or even set of policies to do that.
|
|
#
?
May 30, 2019 20:08
|
|
|
V. Illych L. posted:look, individual assistance to realise one's agency in a market system is about the purest expression of neoliberal policy you can get, taking a massive and important part of everyone's lives out of the market is... not Mate what do you think healthcare does? It keeps you alive so you can continue to function in the market. As long as you live in a market system everything is assistance to realise your individual agency or whatever the gently caress. But that doesn't mean that decoupling the means of subsistence from the labour market is not a good thing??? And I hate to break it to you but "no markets but only for poor people" has a spectacularly bad track record of being a lasting and dependable policy in tyool 2019. And also doesn't actually take people's lives out of the market. OwlFancier fucked around with this message at 20:16 on May 30, 2019 |
|
#
?
May 30, 2019 20:14
|
|
|
wait so you're saying that removing the profit motive from a huge sector of the economy and everyday life is not in itself an interesting attribute of the NHS because i think that it is
|
|
#
?
May 30, 2019 20:20
|
|
|
I am saying that if you want to characterise it that way then you can also invent a wanky way to describe UBI as doing that. Subsistence is no longer tied to participation in the labour market. Magic done whatever.
|
|
#
?
May 30, 2019 20:21
|
|
|
OwlFancier posted:I am saying that if you want to characterise it that way then you can also invent a wanky way to describe UBI as doing that. Subsistence is no longer tied to participation in the labour market. Magic done whatever. you can't use money for anything but engaging in markets, it's literally all it's good for by definition
|
|
#
?
May 30, 2019 20:24
|
|
|
V. Illych L. posted:you can't use money for anything but engaging in markets, it's literally all it's good for by definition The labour market, as in unemployment is less of a threat, your basic ability to survive is not contingent on having a job. If you're seriously proposing workfare as the somehow better alternative I'm assuming this is not an alien concept to you.
|
|
#
?
May 30, 2019 20:25
|
|
|
OwlFancier posted:The labour market, as in unemployment is less of a threat, your basic ability to survive is not contingent on having a job. i have no idea what you're on about at this point, you're not being coherent
|
|
#
?
May 30, 2019 20:26
|
|
|
There's a mix of weird and unclear assumptions going on like "UBI means we have to pay for healthcare again" but that isn't necessarily the case. We can do UBI and nationalized healthcare where you aren't spending your UBI on healthcare.V. Illych L. posted:i have no idea what you're on about at this point, you're not being coherent Labor markets, not "things you are buying with your ubi" markets. BougieBitch posted:Because someone making 100k already gets to pay it right back in taxes FTFY
|
|
#
?
May 30, 2019 20:28
|
|
|
BougieBitch posted:A policy to expand the availability of free meals or improve the quality/decrease the cost/increase availability of public transportation would do a lot more than UBI ever could for exactly the same reasons. Even though a meal might cost the same to make for anyone, the people most likely to take the effort to use them are the poorest, and similarly even though anyone might benefit from another method of transit, the people who stand to benefit the most are those with reduced personal mobility through either disability or just lack of car ownership. Rich people don't typically ride the bus or eat at soup kitchens...
|
|
#
?
May 30, 2019 20:28
|
|
|
Nevvy Z posted:There's a mix of weird and unclear assumptions going on like "UBI means we have to pay for healthcare again" but that isn't necessarily the case. We can do UBI and nationalized healthcare where you aren't spending your UBI on healthcare. this isn't an assumption, i hope. the notion is that UBI would be used as a wedge against the rest of the welfare state, which it absolutely would, but not necessarily to the point of the dissolution of e.g. the NHS. the point is that UBI is a crap policy from a socialist perspective, unlike the NHS, because one is simply working to further people's engagement with commodity transactions and the other is, as helsing put it, decommoditising a huge and important part of the economy to great effect UBI would also require a huge raft of other policy to actually do what it's supposed to do, including some potentially very sketchy ones like price and rent controls which opens it even further to attack. it's just not good. e. Nevvy Z posted:Labor markets, not "things you are buying with your ubi" markets. i genuinely do not understand which argument is being advanced here, i am completely bewildered. please be less cryptic V. Illych L. fucked around with this message at 20:36 on May 30, 2019 |
|
#
?
May 30, 2019 20:32
|
|
|
Decommoditizing things: good. Rent controls: bad.
|
|
#
?
May 30, 2019 20:35
|
|
|
OwlFancier posted:Decommoditizing things: good. i'm actually in favour of abolishing private ownership of housing stock altogether, Right To Buy was a mistake
|
|
#
?
May 30, 2019 20:36
|
|
|
the reason i bring rent controls up in that context is because they're going to mobilise the hell out of the landlord class and you really really need them if you're going to make anything like an UBI work like you want it to. i don't think that rent controls are bad policy per se, to be clear
|
|
#
?
May 30, 2019 20:38
|
|
|
Things that require a revolution: silly. Abolishing private property: a viable alternative to rent control.
|
|
#
?
May 30, 2019 20:38
|
|
|
OwlFancier posted:Things that require a revolution: silly. we can either talk in what can be achieved within the boundaries of the current system, or we can talk about how things are after the revolution. if we are to have a revolution, i will be completely furious if we end up with just handing people cash and calling it a day instead of completely revamping our political-economic system, and i'm sure you can agree. if we're talking about what's practicable in the current political climate, requiring rent controls in the UK to work is a huge downside, because we have to consider how we're going to shield our policy from attack or prevent it from being subverted, and rent controls are going to put people's backs up like crazy. it's not in and of itself a bad policy statement, but when that already very difficult achievement is a prerequisite for your policy you have to think very carefully about what your desired outcomes are here
|
|
#
?
May 30, 2019 20:44
|
|
|
V. Illych L. posted:after the revolution You talk about revolution the same way evangelicals talk about the Rapture.
|
|
#
?
May 30, 2019 21:11
|
|
|
A UBI that let's people pay rent is going to benefit landlords, but I consider "landlords profiting off giving people homes" a good compromise between "landlords profiting off denying people homes" and "kill all landlords." I'm not sure what other compromise you're proposing, because you certainly won't get "kill all landlords" through a liberal society.
|
|
#
?
May 30, 2019 21:13
|
|
|
Somfin posted:You talk about revolution the same way evangelicals talk about the Rapture. what an insipid observation MixMastaTJ posted:A UBI that let's people pay rent is going to benefit landlords, but I consider "landlords profiting off giving people homes" a good compromise between "landlords profiting off denying people homes" and "kill all landlords." landlords do have to rent out to someone, but they'll always take the very maximum they can get away with. in theory you could just build lots and lots of publically owned homes and dilute the market that way; in practice it's probably easier to impose rent control somehow. note, however, that if you just introduce UBI somewhere like New York or London or basically anywhere people want to live without introducing such a control, prices will simply rise to extract the additional profits. it would be the world's most expensive housing subsidy
|
|
#
?
May 30, 2019 21:24
|
|
|
V. Illych L. posted:what an insipid observation Don't worry, I'm sure that, as someone who believes in actually pushing for changes within the systems that currently exist, I'll be one of the bodies forming the foundation of the ideologically pure paradise that the revolution will deliver unto you, the chosen who remained vigilant against such notions.
|
|
#
?
May 30, 2019 21:40
|
|
|
wateroverfire posted:If there are literally no constraints then ok I guess but then what are we even able to talk about? Yeah, pretty much. I'm more or less expecting automation to continue on pace such that in the next 100 years there is literally just not enough useful work for 99% of the population to be doing. We already just don't need that many actual farmers or miners to keep food on the tables and the heat turned on. We're already dumping a significant portion of the food produced. We're already doing idiot poo poo like flaring off natural gas at drill sites in order to maintain market prices. We're already depriving people of housing to maintain market values. We're already burning inventories of clothes to maintain "brand value." It's already not a question of "distributing a limited number of supply in the most efficient way" in many industry sectors - and if it isn't a question of distribution of a limited supply which can't meet the full demand then we really don't need markets in those industry sectors. For example... The housing market hasn't "solved" affordable housing ever. Since its inception there has been a problem of people can't afford housing - except it isn't really a problem per se because it is working as designed. It is on purpose that some people go without because that is how a market functions. What stroke of wild optimism makes anyone think the housing market will someday somehow be able to overcome this issue such that we won't have rampant homelessness / rent burdened tenants / etc.? Does anyone seriously think the lumber/stone/resources and manpower to build sufficient decent housing for all citizens simply doesn't exist and that's why we have wide swathes of our population living in fear of homelessness or already on the street or in a van? The idea of "just try harder to get a job" is going to be absurdity in a few decades (as the UBI people also say). We're already dedicating vaaaast amounts of resources to keeping up the random "bullshit jobs" that have 0 meaningful contribution to the world or society. You could cut out 80%-90% of the finance industry and lose nothing at all. Basically, I'm saying we're approaching actual "post-scarcity economics" while keeping the trappings of 1700s economics because the rich people like the status quo of being able to control the rest of the planet via their hoarded capital. e: I feel like I'm rambling a bit so apologies for that. Look don't get me wrong I don't think I could walk down to the Fed and smugly flip a switch and things would be dandy but if we don't start collectively questioning just how and why poo poo functions then we're never going to be able to come up with something better. Moridin920 fucked around with this message at 22:07 on May 30, 2019 |
|
#
?
May 30, 2019 21:47
|
|
|
V. Illych L. posted:what an insipid observation "If you demand higher wages, companies will just raise prices to pay for them!"
|
|
#
?
May 30, 2019 22:19
|
|
|
MixMastaTJ posted:A UBI that let's people pay rent is going to benefit landlords, but I consider "landlords profiting off giving people homes" a good compromise between "landlords profiting off denying people homes" and "kill all landlords." I think we need to illegalize rent. You're paying, you are paying to own. probably impractical.
|
|
#
?
May 30, 2019 22:52
|
|
|
Somfin posted:You talk about revolution the same way evangelicals talk about the Rapture. MixMastaTJ posted:A UBI that let's people pay rent is going to benefit landlords, but I consider "landlords profiting off giving people homes" a good compromise between "landlords profiting off denying people homes" and "kill all landlords." Moridin920 posted:Yeah, pretty much. I'm more or less expecting automation to continue on pace such that in the next 100 years there is literally just not enough useful work for 99% of the population to be doing. 
|
|
#
?
May 30, 2019 23:01
|
|
|
I don't think Marx or Lenin had a whole lot to say about automation for me to be a revisionist about 
|
|
#
?
May 30, 2019 23:03
|
|
|
MixMastaTJ posted:"If you demand higher wages, companies will just raise prices to pay for them!" wage increases are not uniform across society; UBI, presumably, would be and it would be trivial for landlords absent further regulation to simply adjust the baseline level of rent that they charged to snaffle pretty much all of it up
|
|
#
?
May 30, 2019 23:04
|
|
|
Somfin posted:Don't worry, I'm sure that, as someone who believes in actually pushing for changes within the systems that currently exist, I'll be one of the bodies forming the foundation of the ideologically pure paradise that the revolution will deliver unto you, the chosen who remained vigilant against such notions. oh ok you're a liberal that's cool, but your critique seems to fall somewhat short given that i myself make the distinction between immediately practical reform and what might be possible in a revolutionary situation, in the post you quoted
|
|
#
?
May 30, 2019 23:06
|
|
|
Nevvy Z posted:I think we need to illegalize rent. You're paying, you are paying to own. probably impractical. I agree but if we're asking "what policies will the landlords also support" that ain't one of them.
|
|
#
?
May 30, 2019 23:11
|
|
|
V. Illych L. posted:oh ok you're a liberal V. Illych L. in the post I quoted posted:it's probably easier to impose rent control somehow "Somehow" being code for praying for the revolution while making sure that you never have to compromise by making the systems that are not loving going away until then work better for more people. If "the systems should work better" makes me a liberal, then "no they shouldn't" makes you an accelerationist. Somfin fucked around with this message at 23:26 on May 30, 2019 |
|
#
?
May 30, 2019 23:24
|
|
|
are... are you suggesting that rent control is a revolutionary measure
|
|
#
?
May 30, 2019 23:26
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 29, 2024 07:38 |
|
|
V. Illych L. posted:are... are you suggesting that rent control is a revolutionary measure I don't know, let's ask you V. Illych L. posted:if we're talking about what's practicable in the current political climate, requiring rent controls in the UK to work is a huge downside, because we have to consider how we're going to shield our policy from attack or prevent it from being subverted, and rent controls are going to put people's backs up like crazy. it's not in and of itself a bad policy statement, but when that already very difficult achievement is a prerequisite for your policy you have to think very carefully about what your desired outcomes are here It seems like you're saying here that rent control is something that can't be achieved in the current system without scaring the poo poo out of people and that this is a reasonable argument against it. Like, take a position, is rent control a good positive possible step that we should work toward alongside UBI, or is it something that's going to be too difficult to achieve and should therefore be shelved until it's moot because we've all been delivered to the promised land?
|
|
#
?
May 30, 2019 23:36
|
|