- Lindsey O. Graham
- Dec 31, 2016
-
"We're not generating enough angry white guys to stay in business for the long term."
- The Chief
|
fact:
this will never be implemented in the United States for the reason not a step mentioned:
the business classes want their dicks sucked in said back alley; this will not change unless the us government develops a spine, and  , that's not happening!
Only registered members can see post attachments!
|
#
¿
May 5, 2017 23:52
|
|
- Adbot
-
ADBOT LOVES YOU
|
|
|
#
¿
Apr 28, 2024 06:11
|
|
- Lindsey O. Graham
- Dec 31, 2016
-
"We're not generating enough angry white guys to stay in business for the long term."
- The Chief
|
i think massive inflation is a good idea too tbh
that's the current argument against ubi
that if you drop money out of the sky, prices increase due to increased consumption which then leads to massive inflation
there is like a certain percent of employment that the government tries to avoid reaching, just to prevent inflation
|
|
#
¿
May 6, 2017 03:06
|
|
- Lindsey O. Graham
- Dec 31, 2016
-
"We're not generating enough angry white guys to stay in business for the long term."
- The Chief
|
Mild predictable inflation is good for everyone except people who keep all their money under a mattress or in a scrooge mcduck style money bin
The poor don't have savings. Its why theyre poor! The middle class doesn't really have any notable savings either and usually a lot of debt. Crashing everybody's non existent savings while inflating away debt would be a massive boon for everyone except the ultra-rich, and frankly gently caress those guys (provided the inflation was reasonable, predictable, and wages inflated to keep track - super important caveats).
I mean yeah for something like factory work where the lines never stop and you just hire another shift's worth of workers, but for basically everything else declaring a 30 hour work week doesn't really *do* much. More time off is nice though, I guess.
there is the issue, the caveats
wages will not be inflated at rate due to sticky wages(employers failing to raise wages at pace), and while increased consumption will lead to increased employment, there is a trade off point where, employment will actually fall
as well as consumption due to the readjusting of prices
as employment falls people lose collective bargaining power as they attempt to reenter the workforce, leading to lower wages, while the market adjusts to the expectation that everyone has ubi
put simply, if workers don't seize the means of production, nothing gets done
be sure that the business classes will continue to screw people in every event, because the advantage is theirs to set the rules i.e. lowered wages, and higher prices, and lower employment to compensate
|
|
#
¿
May 6, 2017 09:11
|
|
- Lindsey O. Graham
- Dec 31, 2016
-
"We're not generating enough angry white guys to stay in business for the long term."
- The Chief
|
my belief is that there needs to be a guarantee of a universal standard of living, not a basic income.
if the greatest dumbasses of our society like the current president or the idiots in finance who tanked our economy are living like kings, then the fundamental promise of the meritocracy and just world theory is a lie - thus wealth and power must be redistributed to protect the nation from their terror, and to instill in people's minds that we our only as great as the quality of living of our poorest person.
we should want people to wake up in the morning and be proud they live in a nation where nobody is living on the streets, or starving, and our children are all receiving a quality education. thus, our nation as a whole becomes a stronger unit, and we are obligated as citizens to look out for one another's well-being. universal programs for health care and giving the homeless homes are actually cheaper on our taxpayers as well as being an overall public good.
we have 6 houses to every homeless person, most of which are lovely McMansion abominations, and we throw out 40% of our food while many struggle on food stamps and others just go hungry. the "free market" is great for tech doodads and virtual reality and non-essentials, but for providing the essentials of life, it's a brutally cruel and stupid system that imposes suffering on many for the profit of a few.
UBI is simply giving cash into the hands of the many poor so they can enrich the wealth of the few capital-holders in our society. we need to build a more fundamental core set of policies to challenge this idiotic shitshow we've been forced to subscribe to since birth.
now, you have hit at the heart of the thing
you are strong, and cool, and good, and probably a good friend to many
unironically
|
|
#
¿
May 8, 2017 09:38
|
|
- Lindsey O. Graham
- Dec 31, 2016
-
"We're not generating enough angry white guys to stay in business for the long term."
- The Chief
|
|
|
#
¿
May 13, 2017 09:08
|
|
- Lindsey O. Graham
- Dec 31, 2016
-
"We're not generating enough angry white guys to stay in business for the long term."
- The Chief
|
housing's price is so incredibly hosed up by so many different factors that it's not even worth talking about in a social welfare context. even bringing it up shows staggering ignorance of how deep that hosed up legislative rabbit hole goes.
the current tax code mammothly rewards people who own land in dozens of ways, be it as a tax write-off nexus for keeping "fallow farmland" in the middle of a suburb or just owning a large lot with a reasonably sized house. this artificially inflates the cost of housing, because in general the house is a depreciating liability on top of an appreciating asset (the land). zoning laws are rampantly used to keep prices of existing structures from falling, which penalizes everyone who does not currently own property. governments then are forced to fund 'affordable housing projects' to create new bottom-dollar housing in speculative districts or slums to try to hastily get some disenfranchised renters from voting them out of office and causing more chaos and pain in the overall housing system.
if you look at the fundamentals of building a home, there is absolutely no reason for a new construction house to be as expensive as a 30 year old home.
- are building materials more expensive? no; in fact, pretty much every material you can think of is cheaper nowadays, whether due to increased/more efficient production (woods, brick, sheet rock, etc - all good signs) or shoddier substitutes (many kinds of plaster and insulation - bad signs)
- is the actual construction more expensive? no; tooling has continued to improve and fewer workers can put together 10 houses faster than more workers could put together 10 houses in 1980. these inputs are markedly less expensive, not more.
- are the logistics more complicated? no; matter of fact it's a hundred times easier to get what you need to build a house to a site now vs 1980 due to the logistics revolutions that drove the 1990s economic expansions in retail seeping into other disciplines.
- is the land itself more expensive? no; due to the above massive rewarding of existing homeowners, it's very rare for existing lots to be abandoned entirely. consequently, almost all new construction happens in marginal areas that are not developed and connected to services yet. the services follow the homeowners, not the other way around.
literally the only adequate explanation for why housing costs as much or more in real terms vs 1980 is due to existing laws that treat housing as an investment or rent farm rather than a malthusian need for shelter and family rearing. look at any of the other basic needs malthus called out to compare it: food is objectively cheaper than it was in 1980, whether by resisting inflation or outright falling in price. fuel, in terms of heating so you don't die of exposure is also cheaper on average, though price spikes still occur and that's terrifying and bad. clothing (or fiber, as malthus calls it out) is more expensive on the high end to look very stylish, but is substantially less expensive to buy basic shirts, pants, coats, and blankets due to increasing mechanization.
the shelter need is outside of normal market forces and every financial professional out there knows it. this is precisely why the 2008 bullshit was so bad. nobody questioned that housing and land prices would ever fall, because every government from federal to locals in every western country on the planet was treating housing and land so preferably it seemed impossible. morons took that idiot belief to its extreme and whoops, turns out you can't legislate away basic loving math.
trying to indict a UBI scheme based upon the variable and high cost of shelter is basically saying 'the government can't do something good, because they're already doing something bad.' it's not an economic argument, it's not a market argument. it's a circular government vs government argument. you can't even say 'well, let's fix housing laws before worrying about UBI then' because housing laws are insanely complicated and touching their preferred status in any way will have real economic shockwaves. they will need to be handled over the course of decades in order to not cause widespread chaos. in the meantime, you still have people needlessly going underclothed, underfed, and shivering in the cold - and THAT isn't even a bleeding heart liberal appeal to compassion. people who are underfed, underclothed, and overstressed cannot perform in the general labor market, which reduces the available labor, shrinks the size of the market, and damages its overall effectiveness. even libertarian thinking grants that it's in our best interest to make sure our markets are as large and widely-inclusive as possible because that's literally how they work best - and therefore, this hunger and crushing poverty bullshit must be eliminated for the good of the market at large.
oh, and as a matter of fact, a UBI scheme that ensures everyone has some level of purchasing power regardless of housing shockwaves happen is, in fact, one of the better currently proposed ways to handle this potential turmoil.
e: also, the above is part of why it's not even clear that prices of other malthusian needs would fluctuate at all if a half-livable UBI scheme was implemented; between existing welfare schemes and charities, so much food, clothing, and heating material is outright given away that the lost commerce is a market in and of itself. a UBI scheme would bring every a huge chunk of soup kitchen and coat exchange patrons into the regular market, which creates all new incentives for those able to provide the highest quality product at the lowest price - precisely the incentive that has seen milk, eggs, and jackets cost less and less year over year.
you have summarized this issue quite well, and i have little to add
|
|
#
¿
May 24, 2017 09:33
|
|
- Lindsey O. Graham
- Dec 31, 2016
-
"We're not generating enough angry white guys to stay in business for the long term."
- The Chief
|
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 trump
the 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
- Dec 31, 2016
-
"We're not generating enough angry white guys to stay in business for the long term."
- The Chief
|
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
|
|
- Lindsey O. Graham
- Dec 31, 2016
-
"We're not generating enough angry white guys to stay in business for the long term."
- The Chief
|
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
|
|
- Lindsey O. Graham
- Dec 31, 2016
-
"We're not generating enough angry white guys to stay in business for the long term."
- The Chief
|
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.
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.
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.
stop.
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.
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.
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
- Dec 31, 2016
-
"We're not generating enough angry white guys to stay in business for the long term."
- The Chief
|
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
|
|
- Lindsey O. Graham
- Dec 31, 2016
-
"We're not generating enough angry white guys to stay in business for the long term."
- The Chief
|
a screed about pigs flying was written here
-fin
Lindsey O. Graham has issued a correction as of 23:41 on Jun 19, 2017
|
|
#
¿
Jun 19, 2017 22:27
|
|
- Adbot
-
ADBOT LOVES YOU
|
|
|
#
¿
Apr 28, 2024 06:11
|
|
#
¿
May 5, 2017 23:52
where have ya been?
