|
pretty bold of the op to propose slavery in yool 2017
|
#
?
Jun 6, 2017 19:59
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 28, 2024 21:35 |
|
|
he's just taking advice from Hillary
|
|
#
?
Jun 6, 2017 23:52
|
|
|
|
|
#
?
Jun 7, 2017 08:08
|
|
|
I don't know if this has been brought up already, but say UBI has been implemented. What is stopping industry leaders from colluding to raise the prices on food, gas, medicine, and any other good with inelastic demand, sidestepping inflation, and essentially making people wage slaves again?
|
|
#
?
Jun 17, 2017 16:56
|
|
|
Existing laws and coordination costs. There is inelastic demand for being fed, but not for "food": people will spend more or less on it in different circumstances, and will change what they eat in response to prices. Further, I don't see how collusion could be effective in a market as big as "food," much less secret. Maybe only for certain commodities, but again, we have laws for that.
|
|
#
?
Jun 17, 2017 17:07
|
|
|
the same anti trust and anti collaboration laws that keep them from doing it today i mean you can argue that they do it regardless of the regulation and you wouldn't be entirely wrong (but you also wouldn't be very right either) but that's a discussion about and regarding those regs and they have relatively little to do with ubi. they are critical to a functioning market regardless.
|
|
#
?
Jun 17, 2017 17:09
|
|
|
Coolguye posted:the same anti trust and anti collaboration laws that keep them from doing it today It does have to do with UBI, though, and it's part of the problem of universal healthcare as well. Why are hospital bills so high? If the government is going to foot the bill, it has to have some leverage or means of price control, which is not put into law at this time.
|
|
#
?
Jun 17, 2017 17:12
|
|
|
When the government pays for all healthcare, it has overwhelming leverage to set prices. 
|
|
#
?
Jun 17, 2017 17:24
|
|
|
Doc Hawkins posted:When the government pays for all healthcare, it has overwhelming leverage to set prices. Ok, well let's apply that to UBI where it is not paying companies directly. I assume UBI will have to keep pace with the cost of living. How will the government exert control over multiple industries that contribute to the "cost of living"? It's not like they can just go, "hey, you need to do something about these prices or we're not paying you" when they are paying the consumers. Monsanto, for instance, could manufacture a shortage of pesticide chemicals, which will affect the prices of those goods the pesticides are used on (which could cover quite a lot of food products). Sure, you can argue "oh, we have laws to prevent that", but you forget about the burden of proof and the fiasco that is our legal system. By the time the manufactured shortage has been investigated and punished (if it ever was), the cost of living has been raised by who knows how much, and the government is stuck raising UBI with no recourse to fix the actual issue.
|
|
#
?
Jun 17, 2017 17:40
|
|
|
UBI will be passed alongside bills to nationalize monsanto
|
|
#
?
Jun 17, 2017 18:02
|
|
|
What's stopping them from doing that now? UBI doesn't meaningful change the situation with Monsanto.
|
|
#
?
Jun 18, 2017 01:10
|
|
|
Moose_Knuck posted:It does have to do with UBI, though, and it's part of the problem of universal healthcare as well. Why are hospital bills so high? If the government is going to foot the bill, it has to have some leverage or means of price control, which is not put into law at this time. i raised the issue of inflation, which is the market response to increased consumption, whether through increased employment or income, and no one in this thread has solid reasoning behind why that won't happen i looked and i waited patiently, and the thread response amounts to yeah we don't want that to happen, so it wouldn't happen it doesn't even require collusion, it's based on capitalist self interest, the more people buy things, the more businesses raise prices, because they can, and the government can step in with regulations, but they would have to be consistently and effectively enforced, however, if companies buy off politicians, which they do, these regulations can either be repealed or left un-enforced our government would have to be willing to exert real influence on private industry without succumbing to massive corruption, and that's been a consistently losing battle since the 1980's i defy anyone in this thread to actually effort post with solid reasoning that doesn't amount to, well, that's illegal or, isn't that immoral, because just  , if we think that matters in the age of trumpthe number one issue with ubi is getting it to work in a primarily capitalist system i think it would work better to socialize medicine, food, and decent shelter (emphasis on decent) instead, through the raising of taxes on the wealthiest, and the closing of tax loopholes such as the capital gains tax but, we can't even raise taxes, because of the rich buying off politicians, yet we are arguing that we can control prices going up through weak, non-existent, or largely un-enforced government legislation Lindsey O. Graham has issued a correction as of 02:40 on Jun 18, 2017 |
|
#
?
Jun 18, 2017 02:23
|
|
|
Lindsey O. Graham posted:i raised the issue of inflation, which is the market response to increased consumption, whether through increased employment or income, and no one in this thread has solid reasoning behind why that won't happen UBI replacing jobs lost to automation wouldn't raise consumption.
|
|
#
?
Jun 18, 2017 02:40
|
|
|
Jeb! Repetition posted:UBI replacing jobs lost to automation wouldn't raise consumption. that's a good start, but is not an effort post, as the point is not fleshed out why would it not raise consumption, if these people aren't buying things now, and start buying things tomorrow, why wouldn't say, their local businesses start raising prices due to increased demand, and lower supply? e: if rust belt coal miners due to ubi can suddenly start buying stuff, why wouldn't the local general store start marking up products, like rice, bread, and toilet paper? Lindsey O. Graham has issued a correction as of 02:45 on Jun 18, 2017 |
|
#
?
Jun 18, 2017 02:42
|
|
|
Price gouging is a thing regardless of where the money comes from, ubi money is not distinguishable from direct wages.
|
|
#
?
Jun 18, 2017 02:47
|
|
|
rudatron posted:Price gouging is a thing regardless of where the money comes from, ubi money is not distinguishable from direct wages. wages have been decreasing steadily for years, if one accounts for inflation ubi would in effect be a wage increase that Americans who are not educated in specific areas haven't seen in decades price gouging is always a thing, but the opportunity to increase it's frequency would not be overlooked by businesses e: also, education should be socialized, as in free, so you don't have these sharp differences in skill sets due to lack of access to education e2: in fact, education is a good example of my point college was free, then when it wasn't it steadily rose in cost with the rising incomes of the country's most fortunate, while the rest of the nation's citizens began making less and less, creating a wider and wider gap in education at no point, did universities go, 'isn't that immoral, robbing the under privileged of an education?' also, the government's attempts to subsidize education on the side of the consumer, merely allowed universities to continue raising prices until the subsidies failed to keep up, and now the government is cutting those too Lindsey O. Graham has issued a correction as of 03:22 on Jun 18, 2017 |
|
#
?
Jun 18, 2017 02:52
|
|
|
Moose_Knuck posted:It does have to do with UBI, though, and it's part of the problem of universal healthcare as well. Why are hospital bills so high? If the government is going to foot the bill, it has to have some leverage or means of price control, which is not put into law at this time. the government cannot and does not dictate prices for things under a universal healthcare system. i'm utterly at a loss as to how you got this idea. the entire 'death panel' argument from the right on the matter hinges on this being the case. if no companies are willing to provide the service requested at a price the customer is willing to pay, the service effectively does not exist. this turns the matter into a discussion between the government on what it considers essential and what it can get for the money it has allocated from taxes to purchase these essential services on behalf of the citizenry. if you call this 'semantics' then you're completely out of touch with the basic concept of supply and demand, which it seems like you are because you're trying to pretend like this flawed interpretation means that under a UBI scheme, the government is having this same conversation with every industry everywhere. that is baldly not the case. let's unpack another one of your dumb posts. Moose_Knuck posted:Ok, well let's apply that to UBI where it is not paying companies directly. I assume UBI will have to keep pace with the cost of living. the government already exerts an insane amount of control over all the industries involved in basic life support. in the USA you have: food: departments of agriculture, both federal and local fuel: department of energy federally, controlled harshly by permits at the state level. a power company literally lives and dies by the whims of the state legislatures. fiber/clothing: health and human services, again both state and local. shelter: department of transportation cares deeply about this at the federal level and every zoning law on the planet is effectively control over shelter needs. whether or not they do this within the target of a sliding UBI scheme is irrelevant. whether or not the UBI scheme allows people to move away from 'hand to mouth' economic behavior is the point. the benefits to an overall market are felt when people move past subsistence and into specialization. the economic activity of one engineer with an associate's degree paid for by UBI is worth five paycheck-to-paycheck day laborers who have no wherewithal to produce or consume anything. this is the actual point of UBI: does it move large numbers of people who cannot find work into industries and positions where they can adequately exercise their economic voice? or, more generally, does it increase the size of the productive labor market? if yes, then it 'works'. if no, then it 'doesn't'. you meander around worrying about price fixing and price gouging and it's like listening to a critic carp about Westworld's writing because it doesn't have wyatt earp. it's not the point and never was. go look at the iran study i posted on this page. it does not mention price changes during the study time period because nobody cares, it isn't the point, and the larger supply/demand dynamic is way more complicated than life support payments. quote:Monsanto, for instance, could manufacture a shortage of pesticide chemicals, you've already presumed a blatant market manipulation that would get Monsanto slapped with an antitrust suit so fast your head would spin. it is illegal for anyone to collude and sabotage the market this way even under current laws; no UBI scheme will matter on this one. do not even try the whole 'monsanto owns everything and we are in a corporatist dystopia' bullshit either because the saying 'every country is three meals from a revolution' is both a lot older than that marxist nonsense and unlike that byline actually has been supported by events and evidence in the last 50 years. microsoft got slapped with an antitrust suit in the 90s for way, way, way less than this assumption. quote:Sure, you can argue "oh, we have laws to prevent that", but you forget about the burden of proof and the fiasco that is our legal system. Coolguye has issued a correction as of 04:15 on Jun 18, 2017 |
|
#
?
Jun 18, 2017 04:09
|
|
|
I think it's fine to fear that anti-trust legislation is no longer effective, just that it isn't a valid objection: if it's a problem, it would be a problem no matter what life-saving social programs we do or don't put into place.
|
|
#
?
Jun 18, 2017 04:21
|
|
|
Coolguye posted:the government cannot and does not dictate prices for things under a universal healthcare system. i'm utterly at a loss as to how you got this idea. the entire 'death panel' argument from the right on the matter hinges on this being the case. if no companies are willing to provide the service requested at a price the customer is willing to pay, the service effectively does not exist. this turns the matter into a discussion between the government on what it considers essential and what it can get for the money it has allocated from taxes to purchase these essential services on behalf of the citizenry. ok, this is not directed to me, but i'm not annoyed because i see why, you wanted to get to the heart of the initial premise that began my effort posting, and when i looked at the bolded, those were good points that actually give me a lot to think about i would prefer you didn't call people dumb, and if was condescending in my language i apologize   i would like to revisit the italic as that is where i still have some concerns, the exploding cost of education is something the ubi would have to keep pace with, in order for it to succeed at helping people get specialized, how would it do this without eventually hitting a roadblock, the way government educational subsidies are doing now also, if the government is so concerned with everyone eating, why are we as politicians perfectly comfortable cutting food stamps, welfare assistance, and social security as we are doing now? Lindsey O. Graham has issued a correction as of 05:31 on Jun 18, 2017 |
|
#
?
Jun 18, 2017 05:28
|
|
|
Lindsey O. Graham posted:also, if the government is so concerned with everyone eating, why are we as politicians perfectly comfortable cutting food stamps, welfare assistance, and social security as we are doing now? why would this be? because SSI is as sacrosanct as actual social security (which will literally go bankrupt before benefits are cut a dime and the last three presidential administrations have said so). it's the third rail of politics. you touch it, you die. and while receiving SSI benefits, people eat, stay clothed, stay warm, and don't vote their sitting politicians out of office or start food riots. further, the exploding cost of education is a real problem for a lot of things that people would want to do, but vocational and associates' studies are still entirely affordable even under a 16k/yr UBI scheme such as Iran's. the total cost of education for electrician training is between 8-11k in most areas. a welding certification in many places is somewhat less due to construction companies outright subsidizing the training as there are so few welders around. an associate's degree varies on what you want to do, but in general it has a TCE that hovers around 15k. this is a huge amount of money to someone making 10 dollars an hour and can barely make ends meet. someone making 10 dollars an hour supplanted by 16k/yr, however, can afford to take a few classes. maybe it takes them 4 years to finish an associate's and trade up in jobs. but it's a way out they currently do not have. i don't pretend like that's the end-all, be-all for everyone. the cost of a 4 year education is absurd, and many universities are recruiting in a very predatory manner by scooping people up into programs that have a TCE of 50k when they know goddamn well the expected yearly salary for a graduate is 35k. that's completely immoral and it's one of the things in that ecosystem that really ought to be illegal. but a 4 year education is neither required nor beneficial for tons of jobs that could really use people right now, so it doesn't ring real to not consider UBI valuable simply because not everyone can go study computer science. Coolguye has issued a correction as of 05:52 on Jun 18, 2017 |
|
#
?
Jun 18, 2017 05:45
|
|
|
You sound like a pretty intelligent individual with a higher level of education than I do. You've made some really good points, but I have counterpoints that I need explained in order for me to buy into it.Coolguye posted:already missing the point. the majority of UBI schemes implemented worldwide are not scheduled to do this, because 'cost of living' is a regional and local thing. UBI is supposed to keep pace with basic life support, not cost of living, which has different meanings based upon where you live, what your family situation is, etc. It only seems fair that the federal government would allocate money to the states to pay out based on estimated cost of living. Obviously there is no one-size-fits-all number that will evenly bring "prosperity" to the citizens of every city, county, state...whatever. Coolguye posted:the government already exerts an insane amount of control over all the industries involved in basic life support. in the USA you have: All you've listed off are reasons why the price of goods increase for each industry. If I was the head of a major corporation--and not being very smart--this would be a convenient excuse for me to drum up a scheme to raise prices when this sudden windfall of UBI money falls into the hands of my target consumer base. Coolguye posted:you've already presumed a blatant market manipulation that would get Monsanto slapped with an antitrust suit so fast your head would spin. Yes, it was blatant, and no, I am not intelligent enough to come up with a truly intriguing scheme for price fixing. While, yes, some companies do get prosecuted, there are plenty of others that fall by the wayside. Case in point: Do you remember gas prices in 2011? Can you explain to me why they were so outrageous at the time? Sure, you can cite the war in Iraq, Saudi Arabia's production, and price fuckery on the futures market, but explain to me why the US was affected so when we are fully capable of producing enough of our own oil to meet the country's demand? You are aware that oil is one of our major exports, right? Why the christ was gas so expensive and what could the government do about that in the future to negate big oil's, for instance, ability to manipulate prices like that again and take a huge chunk out of the purchasing power of UBI? Coolguye posted:wrong. have you ever actually looked at an antitrust suit brought by the government? the bell systems was broken up by court order in 1983 because they couldn't produce adequate evidence to defeat accusations of price fixing and anti-competitive control, and microsoft was slapped with tens of millions in legal fees and forced to open its industry secrets to the world in 2002 because they couldn't show that apple had a reasonable chance of taking them down. this is not a criminal case where the accused is innocent until proven guilty. the standard is a preponderance of evidence for either side, as this is a civil case. however, it's a civil case that is executed for a political agenda, and the politicians own the playing field, so in practice and from actual legal precedent, the defendant is at a disadvantage and carries the burden of proof, just like you do when you show up to traffic court and say "i didn't run that red light, judge". you're not getting off from 'reasonable doubt' when the cop that ticketed you says "yes he did". this is how slanted it was when these corporations were dealing with phones and computers - things literally nobody needs to keep breathing. you honestly expect that politicians would be any nicer to a loving food company, knowing that they're the ones first against the wall when people start starving? i'm gonna need to see your figures on that. I see where you are going with this, and thank you for citing actual cases with dates. My problem with this is how the US government intends to prosecute post-2008. Maybe it's just the financial industry that is exempt? I think it's fair to acknowledge the paradigm shift post-recession.
|
|
#
?
Jun 18, 2017 05:49
|
|
|
i can't speak to your other points, but higher investment in oil and gas due to higher prices led to increased oil production in the us
Lindsey O. Graham has issued a correction as of 10:39 on Jun 18, 2017 |
|
#
?
Jun 18, 2017 06:02
|
|
|
Moose_Knuck posted:All you've listed off are reasons why the price of goods increase for each industry. If I was the head of a major corporation--and not being very smart--this would be a convenient excuse for me to drum up a scheme to raise prices when this sudden windfall of UBI money falls into the hands of my target consumer base. this is horseshit. government regulation has done more to lower food prices than any one company in the history of the country by forcing people to stop selling rancid meat and rotten vegetables, maintain proper refrigeration, and wash their products. negligence has costs and distrust has costs. if you want to see the real cost of distrust look at interpersonal trust attitudes around the world. is it a surprise that commodities in brazil, where roughly 9.2% of people feel that others are in general trustworthy, are more expensive year-on-year versus the united states, where it is 38%? no, because the people in the united states do not have to worry about squirting a tube of toothpaste out on their finger to make sure it is not, in fact, filled with water. that level of trust allows actually honest merchants to make a living and get ahead with real innovations instead of racing to the bottom in the most slipshod way possible and/or accruing massive costs simply earning the trust of every schmo on the street, the way they do currently in countries where regulation is weak. a collective way to bust recalcitrant idiots is the prime example of the tragedy of the commons and why even righties (which, for the record, i lean right) will happily admit that some government is good. this isn't even a new phenomenon. you know the merchant-princes of venice, the doges that had so much money it made them kings in their towns? do you know what their revolution was that let them drop prices so hard they out-competed every other city and country out there? double entry bookkeeping and convoy organization. when people came into the port, they gave motherfuckers receipts, stamped their export logs, and made copy logs for their official import logs that came into the port. and when those motherfuckers finished their business they pointed to a board that said poo poo like "yo dawgs, convoy to africa is leaving on thursday, gonna be 4 warships protecting any of yall bitches that wanna come with. it's gonna hang out there for a week and then it's gonna roll up to the mid-east before coming back to venice. if you want to not be robbed by pirates you should probably get your poo poo together come with us. on time." the net effect of this was that people always wanted to buy from venice because you could actually rely on them getting poo poo done the way you wanted. the number one role of government is to build trust between people so they can trade with each other, and more trade with bigger markets LOWERS prices on the whole, not RAISES them. this is on the whole, to stress, and paints a picture of government that's rather idealized. there's dozens of individual regulations you can point to that probably increase prices fractionally. but there's hundreds of regulations that definitely decrease prices by similar fractions by fostering this trust. to say these departments and government control increase prices overall is to forget how loving retarded things were under laissez faire. so yeah: you make this assertion but what, exactly, is your data and illustrating your alternative? quote:Yes, it was blatant, and no, I am not intelligent enough to come up with a truly intriguing scheme for price fixing. While, yes, some companies do get prosecuted, there are plenty of others that fall by the wayside. Case in point: Do you remember gas prices in 2011? Can you explain to me why they were so outrageous at the time? Sure, you can cite the war in Iraq, Saudi Arabia's production, and price fuckery on the futures market, but explain to me why the US was affected so when we are fully capable of producing enough of our own oil to meet the country's demand? You are aware that oil is one of our major exports, right? Why the christ was gas so expensive and what could the government do about that in the future to negate big oil's, for instance, ability to manipulate prices like that again and take a huge chunk out of the purchasing power of UBI? quote:I see where you are going with this, and thank you for citing actual cases with dates. My problem with this is how the US government intends to prosecute post-2008. Maybe it's just the financial industry that is exempt? I think it's fair to acknowledge the paradigm shift post-recession. i think what you're actually concerned about is that nobody was guillotined for the mammoth amounts of hubris and incompetence in the 2008 crisis, which i feel is completely fair. but that has nothing to do with the articulated point of market making and price fixing that you're talking about, and has no actual relevance to the merit or downfall of UBI as a concept; that is an inherent problem in capitalism that marx pointed out close to a hundred years ago now. capitalist economies tend toward a bubble that results in a painful loss for common people every 10-15 years or so. the data has proven him to be mostly correct about this. it's just as correct to say that planned economies that he generally advocated tend toward complete implosion on the same general time scale, though, so again: what is your alternative? without an alternative it's just a vague boogeyman concern troll. Coolguye has issued a correction as of 06:38 on Jun 18, 2017 |
|
#
?
Jun 18, 2017 06:34
|
|
|
Coolguye posted:I think what you're actually concerned about is that nobody was guillotined for the mammoth amounts of hubris and incompetence in the 2008 crisis, which i feel is completely fair. but that has nothing to do with the articulated point of market making and price fixing that you're talking about, and has no actual relevance to the merit or downfall of UBI as a concept; that is an inherent problem in capitalism that marx pointed out close to a hundred years ago now. capitalist economies tend toward a bubble that results in a painful loss for common people every 10-15 years or so. the data has proven him to be mostly correct about this. it's just as correct to say that planned economies that he generally advocated tend toward complete implosion on the same general time scale, though, so again: what is your alternative? without an alternative it's just a vague boogeyman concern troll. Yes, part of this argument is me projecting my recession fears onto an otherwise good idea. If the recession taught me anything it's that, 1) there are some really intelligent business men and women that constantly try to find ways to "repackage" things in an attempt to siphon money from the consumer, 2) when companies can reduce their risk to near-zero, they get greedy, and bubbles happen, and 3) when enough companies in an industry sign on to said scheme, major price fluctuations happen. You said, "the number one role of government is to build trust...". Since we're already going the route of socialism with universal healthcare and basic income, shouldn't the government be able to legislate the so-called cyclic bubbles out of our system? Whether it's price controls, or, ironically, nationalism, I don't know the solution, but that is my alternative. Coolguye posted:lol 2011 is actually a counter-example of your entire argument dude. you loving said yourself, 'fully capable of producing our own oil to meet the country's demands'. a bad actor in the global market (specifically, it was OPEC and chiefly saudi arabia) engaged in price manipulation OUTSIDE of our laws, eg, the ones that we're ostensibly talking about, and better actors INSIDE our laws took steps to counteract it. did you check the price of oil a mere 4 years after 2011? the price had over halved and it remains depressed today because the bad actors made it profitable for people operating under good laws and good regulation to go do poo poo. and the industry did this while struggling to retrain and staff petroleum platforms of all kinds because it was loving 2011 and everyone was too broke to afford retraining. a UBI would have made that entire shift a lot, lot easier. Around 2015, the prices went down because of more fuckery by OPEC. Saudi Arabia oversupplied crude, which pushed a lot of small-to-medium companies in the US out of business, due to the fact that margins were too small to repay their debt, much less turn a profit. The North Dakota Bakken formation that we heard so much about was hit especially hard. My point about the oil is this: we supply enough to meet our own demand, couldn't there be some legislation that re-channels our exports to meet our own demands, instead of importing crude at hosed up prices? Yes, I'm aware that that opens up a whole other can of worms about isolationism/protectionism, free market, yadda yadda, but hear me out. Wouldn't the decrease in tax revenue from oil companies be offset by the reduced impact on consumer spending as a whole, especially as it pertains to the added purchasing power of UBI? Moose_Knuck has issued a correction as of 07:54 on Jun 18, 2017 |
|
#
?
Jun 18, 2017 07:24
|
|
|
A UBI would not be cost of living based and for drat good reasons and I dont understand how people can not get that. Also all the "what if this bad thing happens?" questions that completely ignore "what stops the bad thing from already being happening and why does a ubi make that stop happening?" Also a UBI would see a huge uptick in entreneurship and lower barriers to entry across the board. Especially for things like food it would be more competitive, not less, since people would have more options to deal with price rises.
|
|
#
?
Jun 18, 2017 13:59
|
|
|
I'm on my phone and hoo buddy is there a lot to unpack hereMoose_Knuck posted:
quote:Around 2015, the prices went down because of more fuckery by OPEC. Saudi Arabia oversupplied crude, which pushed a lot of small-to-medium companies in the US out of business, due to the fact that margins were too small to repay their debt, much less turn a profit. The North Dakota Bakken formation that we heard so much about was hit especially hard. quote:My point about the oil is this: we supply enough to meet our own demand, couldn't there be some legislation that re-channels our exports to meet our own demands, instead of importing crude at hosed up prices? Yes, I'm aware that that opens up a whole other can of worms about isolationism/protectionism, free market, yadda yadda, but hear me out. Wouldn't the decrease in tax revenue from oil companies be offset by the reduced impact on consumer spending as a whole, especially as it pertains to the added purchasing power of UBI? markets work better the bigger and more accessible they are. this is neither news nor controversial, it's the entire lesson of the 19th century, and most of the 20th. literally every single government that engaged in protectionism hurt their own economies relative to their more trade hungry neighbors. this happened one hundred percent of the time. every single time import substitution has been attempted it's gone horribly wrong for the country advocating it, whether that was Japan having an industrious revolution instead of an industrial one in the 1870s and regressing to naked rice stompers instead of automated grinders or India trying to foster a native fertilizer industry and triggering famines a century later. government overstepping their bounds and saying "well we don't like the way that is working right now so we are cutting and running" hurts its citizenry by disallowing them from competing with that market in any way. again, this isn't some libertarian screed, this is the entire point of comparative advantage and specialization, which is a principle that has driven not just our own species' prosperity, but the prosperity of a tiny handful of other species that have managed to capture it. ants are one of the most successful life forms on the planet largely because they harness these economic principles. I realize I'm repeating myself but I have to on these forums since most people have allergic responses to market arguments, no matter how cold hard factual they are. the microeconomic reality is that the profits gained by companies working in that sector and the taxes garnished from them hugely outweigh the price of kowtowing to that sort of dirty market pressure and you only need to look at tax collections by state and federal governments to prove that. your question is a false one because you presume that by doing this we would decrease tax collections from oil companies. that is not the case. if you make a company pay an extra 5% in taxes but reduce their incidental costs or increase their earnings by 7%, they still want to work with you over, say, Venezuela or Guatemala because they still take home more money. and once again this is the overall proposition a UBI offers. pay us 5% more money and you'll get a citizenry that is more capable of reacting to market moves so you can actually seize 10% more of them (or whatever the numbers shake out to). that is exactly what the data suggests in the Iran study as well. Coolguye has issued a correction as of 22:01 on Jun 18, 2017 |
|
#
?
Jun 18, 2017 18:46
|
|
|
I don't have anything to add but I wanted to say Coolguye made some pretty fantastic posts there. I would love to read more of this stuff.
|
|
#
?
Jun 19, 2017 00:18
|
|
|
Coolguye posted:(which, for the record, i lean right) idk man you're definitely to the left of most of Freedomland
|
|
#
?
Jun 19, 2017 04:30
|
|
|
Coolguye posted:that is the planned economy. government goes out and tells people what they are doing in terms of production these year and manages everything on behalf of the citizenry. in this way, speculation is impossible and bubbles don't exist. the only planned economy left on the planet is north korea's - all of the rest of them brought stagnation, misery, and deprivation to the people it ostensibly served. and North Korea currently starves its people to build nukes on a regular basis so they arguably are already imploded and are just waiting for the counting to start in economic terms. if this is ostensibly socialism then it's socialism gone too far and again, all the data is very unambiguous about this. there's a lot of reasons why planned economies don't work but that's beyond the scope of this post. for the purposes of this thread you're advocating the policy that lost the second world the Cold War. I'm down with everything you said, but this. I don't buy that because it hasn't worked before that it can't work. How many start-ups go out of business before one finally succeeds? Isn't the Fed's monetary policy essentially "planned economy"? I'm not advocating for absolutism, I'm really not, but something as simple as limiting the leverage a company can employ would do wonders to smooth out the cyclic bubbles you were referring to earlier. EDIT: I'm talking about companies with a certain market cap. Obviously, limiting a start-up's ability to employ leverage would hinder it's growth potential, while also not being large enough to noticeably affect the economy as a whole. Moose_Knuck has issued a correction as of 04:43 on Jun 19, 2017 |
|
#
?
Jun 19, 2017 04:36
|
|
|
Coolguye posted:I'm on my phone and hoo buddy is there a lot to unpack here god drat this is some dumb loving bullshit we built the bomb and nuked japan with a planned economy, we invented supersonic aircraft with a planned economy, we deveolped weather satellites with a planned economy go read a fukken book
|
|
#
?
Jun 19, 2017 05:52
|
|
|
Price controls are not equivalent to a planned economy, and the soviet economy kicked around for about 60 years, so they clearly in principle work. The assertion that the stagnation/crises of the late soviet period are an insurmountable, inherent flaw of planned economies as whole, rather than a result of much simpler issues such as corruption or simply lack of feedback/trust, is pure market-fundamentalist ideology. That has no empirical basis.
|
|
#
?
Jun 19, 2017 07:09
|
|
|
mrbradlymrmartin posted:god drat this is some dumb loving bullshit we built the bomb and nuked japan with a planned economy, we invented supersonic aircraft with a planned economy, we deveolped weather satellites with a planned economy  where have ya been?anyway, i'm happy to see you 
|
|
#
?
Jun 19, 2017 07:42
|
|
|
Coolguye posted:I'm on my phone and hoo buddy is there a lot to unpack here wrong
|
|
#
?
Jun 19, 2017 07:53
|
|
|
H.P. Hovercraft posted:idk man you're definitely to the left of most of Freedomland Mitt Romney is the new center
|
|
#
?
Jun 19, 2017 14:56
|
|
|
capitalism... is bad
|
|
#
?
Jun 19, 2017 16:07
|
|
|
Funny, but please don't poo poo on the guy, especially because he's making interesting effort posts. How rare are effort posts?
|
|
#
?
Jun 19, 2017 16:58
|
|
|
And back on topic (slightly), what are increases to UBI based on if not the cost of living? Is it some arbitrary, made-up measure specifically for UBI? Also, how would the initial payout be decided? "Hey, let's go throw 16 grand on these guys because that sounds right" isn't doing it for me.
Moose_Knuck has issued a correction as of 18:06 on Jun 19, 2017 |
|
#
?
Jun 19, 2017 17:05
|
|
|
off the top of my head i'd say something obvious like the price of a basket of commodities that humans require for basic subsistence you know, like how inflation is already measured
|
|
#
?
Jun 19, 2017 17:56
|
|
|
I mean it's not like we have people already coming up with numbers that we could use as a starting point for discussion if nothing else. Also, you pay it out monthly like every other benefit program.
|
|
#
?
Jun 19, 2017 18:28
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 28, 2024 21:35 |
|
|
Moose_Knuck posted:And back on topic (slightly), what are increases to UBI based on if not the cost of living? Is it some arbitrary, made-up measure specifically for UBI? Also, how would the initial payout be decided? "Hey, let's go throw 16 grand on these guys because that sounds right" isn't doing it for me. Why are all your questions so bad. Also this one was explicitly and rather specifically answered the last time you asked it and you ignored the answer which you'll probably do again. Cost of living is just as much an "arbitrary, made up measure" as that one was. If you wanted to base it on cost of living, you'd base it on some national minimum and then work from there I imagine. But it's probably better to base it on more useful things since you want it to be higher than that. But you absolutely would not, under any circumstances, want to make it tailored to each individual. Down that road lies madness and terrible consequences. Perverse incentives all over the loving place, and a loss of many of the things that make it valuable, a loss of most of its rhetorical underpinnings, and an incredible sense of unfairness that would quickly see it eliminated
|
|
#
?
Jun 19, 2017 20:22
|
|