Dear Greg,
What an amazing show you did with Scott Santens. I was surprised and very glad to see this discussion happening.
I always believed the unintended consequences of a universal basic income will be a breakthrough for our human society. The traditional status-quo way of doing business based on competition, scarcity and authority is no longer containable/sustainable.
Scott made some great points throughout, reflecting on common-assumptions I had about increased government control; and great points on saving money, improving immigration. The other thing which may've been looked over is equality or equilibrium amongst classes and peoples (women/men; various ethnic groups) and solve the taxing-without-representation paradigm.
Perhaps the greatest hope is for tinkerers and inventors who would have some leeway to spend time on the next breakthrough inventions. I think of the next Nikola Tesla who will come up with something new on his spare-time from his dull-unsatisfying work.
Last but not least, for those who don't know, Scott Santens manages a Patreon account on which he keeps updates on BasicIncome and writes articles in exchange of crowdfunding his own basic income. He is the living proof of this new paradigm and I also encourage you to check out his Frequently Asked Questions about Basic Income which is a tremendous resource on all sorts of questions you may have.
Greg;
I thought that Universal Basic income was a great episode. There were a few items on which I felt that Scott was a little misguided on but agree with probably over 90% of what he says.
In a world of increasing automation anyone that argues against universal basic income just is not thinking. We made machines to make our lives easier. When they did we then decided that we had to "create jobs" so that everyone could work. It makes no sense. If we need to have jobs then get rid of the machines. If we want our lives to be easier then quit working so much. Anyone that says we have to worship technology and automation and then go on to say we then need to create jobs just is not making any logical sense.
As far as how this episode fits in with everything else... There are only so many times I can hear how messed our society is before I just want to give up. I am far more interested in shows like this that talk about ways to move forward. Some people might ask for more concrete, short term, "do something now" kind of ideas. I personally think that if we can just paint a picture of a better future and get enough of us to agree that it should and can happen then the details will work themselves out.
I am a firm believer that we call forth our experience from our beliefs and expectations. More so with out emotions than our thoughts, but we call it forth none the less. In that frame focusing on how messed up stuff is can be more of a continuation of the problem rather than the solution. I understand that we have to understand that there is a problem before we can move forward. However once that is well established I think it's time to focus on where we are headed not where we have been.
Once again, great show. Thank you Greg and thanks to our guest Scott Santens.
Looks like Finland doesn't think the Universal Income idea worked...
Universal basic income 'useless', says Finland's biggest union
Since January, some unemployed Finns have been receiving a stipend of €560 (£477) per month; amount isn’t means-tested and is paid regardless of whether recipient finds a job
Finland’s basic income experiment is unworkable, uneconomical and ultimately useless. Plus, it will only encourage some people to work less.
That’s not the view of a hard core Thatcherite, but of the country’s biggest trade union. The labour group says the results of the two-year pilot program will fail to sway its opposition to a welfare-policy idea that’s gaining traction among those looking for an alternative in the post-industrial age.
“We think it takes social policy in the wrong direction,” said Ilkka Kaukoranta, chief economist of the Central Organisation of Finnish Trade Unions (SAK), which has nearly 1 million members.
Since January, a group of unemployed Finns aged between 25 and 58 have been receiving a stipend of €560 (£477) per month. The amount isn’t means-tested and is paid regardless of whether the recipient finds a job, starts a business or returns to school.
Popular in the 1960s, the idea of a guaranteed minimum income for everyone is gaining more proponents again amid resurgent populism. French Socialist candidate Benoit Hamon has made it a policy platform in his presidential campaign.
A universal — or unconditional — basic income (UBI), which would replace means-tested welfare payments, has its share of supporters on both the left and the right of the political spectrum. Advocates say it eliminates poverty traps and redistributes income while empowering the individual and reducing paperwork.
The article continues at the link below:
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/business/news/universal-basic-income-finland-useless-says-trade-union-a7571966.html
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cTsEzmFamZ8
Hello y'all,
I'm upping this thread since today is a historic day for universal basic income idea. Reason being, Joe Rogan had a guest, Andrew Yang who is a candidate for the upcoming US elections, and a big supporter of this policy.
Now I'm not a US citizen, but this is game changer, especially when it's spread on platform like Joe's.
It's funny, I used to be a fervent supporter of UBI, and like most things, it turned into a fantasy dream (e.g., the potential of seeing zero-point-energy devices released to the public). But lately, with the Yellow Vest's movement encouraging folks to come up with their own civic ideas through a RIC (Citizen's Initiative Referendum), the idea slowly returned. Mainly, because I still think a UBI is the single most high-potential policy (most bang for the buck, as some peep say).
And I'm glad Joe finally has a knowledgable guy on the topic.
Greg had Scott Santens a while ago, whom I supported over the years via Patreon, and I think he made a great case on THC at the time.
It's also synchronistic, after last week's news regarding the Finland's UBI trial result came back with positive feedbacks. Unsurprisingly for proponents, the recipients of the monthly ~$630USD income reported:
- Better overall health; less stress
- Recipients felt that they could tackle social issues relevant to them.
And yet the Finnish government's focus is on how well it enabled these people to find jobs. And because they thought it didn't do a good job, the experiment will likely be shelved. *facepalm*
I have lots to say about the numerous ways this was skewed, but regardless, its still a triumph. And Andrew Yang's policy is much more thorough in his analysis, and the only worry I have so far, is that he will end up like JFK.
My thoughts on UBI:
1. Should not be thought of as unemployment, make work, or job placement. FULL STOP. Obviously not the case with Finland's perspective right now.
2. Ultimately this should be a living wage, perhaps not completely at first due to cost. I.E. 40-55K in the US (today) depending on location per adult with a smaller stipend for children and tied to annual updates of living expenses. What I mean by that is enough for housing, higher education, transportation, REAL food (organic whole foods), full healthcare, and a reasonable disposable income.
3. UBI is not a panacea. Reforms of all of the necessities in 2. would be required for this to be sustainable. The more housing, higher education, transportation, food, and healthcare are improved and socialized the lower per-person cost required to implement. But perhaps things like housing and food have their own intrinsic value being diversified by being independently financed in which case socialization of those industries would not make social sense. But there would still be huge areas for reform to make housing and food more sustainable, cheaper, safer, and healthier.
What the above would mean is that people in horrible working conditions or bullshit jobs (estimated by David Graeber at about 40-60% of jobs currently) would likely quit and begin working on more socially productive work, and crimes of desperation and the associated social costs would evaporate- this would eliminate a huge source of waste in the system. This would also result in a rapid restructuring of society to more socially valuable and sustainable work as well as co-operative working conditions. Additionally there would potentially be the ability to work fewer hours - however that is structured (hours per day or days per week).
I know the standard argument is that nobody would work in that case. Wrong. Nobody would HAVE to work a shitty, unfulfilling, and degrading job again. People wouldn't just sit around navel-gazing, they would want to do something worthwhile even if it were not well-paid. This would largely collapse the current syndicate-corporatist model and that is the main source of push-back on this initiative.
Wow...talk about a 1st-World entitlement mentality...one would think that people would've learned the lessons of big, authoritarian, centralized-state control over populations by now...
Instead of this kind of big-picture utopianism, why don't you authoritarians experiment w/this kind of shit on a smaller level? Get together w/some close friends and/or family members & implement this kind of BS amongst yourselves...let's see how well that works out for ya'!
signature
enjoypolo wrote: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cTsEzmFamZ8
Hello y'all,
I'm upping this thread since today is a historic day for universal basic income idea. Reason being, Joe Rogan had a guest, Andrew Yang who is a candidate for the upcoming US elections, and a big supporter of this policy.
Now I'm not a US citizen, but this is game changer, especially when it's spread on platform like Joe's.It's funny, I used to be a fervent supporter of UBI, and like most things, it turned into a fantasy dream (e.g., the potential of seeing zero-point-energy devices released to the public). But lately, with the Yellow Vest's movement encouraging folks to come up with their own civic ideas through a RIC (Citizen's Initiative Referendum), the idea slowly returned. Mainly, because I still think a UBI is the single most high-potential policy (most bang for the buck, as some peep say).
And I'm glad Joe finally has a knowledgable guy on the topic.Greg had Scott Santens a while ago, whom I supported over the years via Patreon, and I think he made a great case on THC at the time.
It's also synchronistic, after last week's news regarding the Finland's UBI trial result came back with positive feedbacks. Unsurprisingly for proponents, the recipients of the monthly ~$630USD income reported:
- Better overall health; less stress
- Recipients felt that they could tackle social issues relevant to them.And yet the Finnish government's focus is on how well it enabled these people to find jobs. And because they thought it didn't do a good job, the experiment will likely be shelved. *facepalm*
I have lots to say about the numerous ways this was skewed, but regardless, its still a triumph. And Andrew Yang's policy is much more thorough in his analysis, and the only worry I have so far, is that he will end up like JFK.
I wonder if you people realize that every dollar a recipient on the receiving end of the 'free' UBI gets has to be taken from someone else that actually worked for that dollar...? I wonder how having 30-50% of their labor stolen by the govt. affects the health & happiness of the people actually working...?
And, FYI, the shill/fraud Toe Rogan is WEALTHIER than those in the top 1% (if you earn like $300,000/yr. you're in the top 1%, and Toe makes a multiple of that figure)...when rich, elitist, Leftist a-holes like Toe start sharing their own wealth I'll start listening to them.
signature
enjoypolo wrote: Dear Greg,
What an amazing show you did with Scott Santens. I was surprised and very glad to see this discussion happening.I always believed the unintended consequences of a universal basic income will be a breakthrough for our human society. The traditional status-quo way of doing business based on competition, scarcity and authority is no longer containable/sustainable.
Scott made some great points throughout, reflecting on common-assumptions I had about increased government control; and great points on saving money, improving immigration. The other thing which may've been looked over is equality or equilibrium amongst classes and peoples (women/men; various ethnic groups) and solve the taxing-without-representation paradigm.
Perhaps the greatest hope is for tinkerers and inventors who would have some leeway to spend time on the next breakthrough inventions. I think of the next Nikola Tesla who will come up with something new on his spare-time from his dull-unsatisfying work.
Last but not least, for those who don't know, Scott Santens manages a Patreon account on which he keeps updates on BasicIncome and writes articles in exchange of crowdfunding his own basic income. He is the living proof of this new paradigm and I also encourage you to check out his Frequently Asked Questions about Basic Income which is a tremendous resource on all sorts of questions you may have.
<a href=" http://www.scottsantens.com/basic-income-faq " target="_blank">Guide to Basic Income by Scott Santens
<a href=" https://www.patreon.com/scottsantens/posts " target="_blank">Scott Santens Patreon account
Why do people act as if socialism/communism/authoritarianism is some new, exciting idea...? Why do so many otherwise free-thinking people here at THC think putting politicians/bureaucrats in control of society is a good idea...?
signature
You obviously didn't watch the video. The problem is that technological skill obsolescence is beginning to accellerate and penetrate a variety of industries. Take it from someone who knows robotics and manufacturing. The labor market has been shifting for decades and if trends continue within 20 years the labor landscape will be much different assuming that pole shift or solar storms haven't wiped out the electric grid. You will not be taking money from workers, you will be taking the output from robots for people to use rather than allowing them to die in the gutter of deprivation.
shamangineer wrote: You obviously didn't watch the video. The problem is that technological skill obsolescence is beginning to accellerate and penetrate a variety of industries. Take it from someone who knows robotics and manufacturing. The labor market has been shifting for decades and if trends continue within 20 years the labor landscape will be much different assuming that pole shift or solar storms haven't wiped out the electric grid. You will not be taking money from workers, you will be taking the output from robots for people to use.
Farming used to employ the vast majority of the population at the dawn of the 20th century. Technology eliminated like 95% or more of those jobs and people adjusted w/o a massive wealth redistribution scheme. You have no idea what things will look like in 20 years or if the trends you think you understand will still be in force. I'm noticing a disturbingly strong authoritarian streak among many in the conspiracy community...one would think that folks who distrust the existing Govt.-Corporate power-structure would be a little more wary of essentially placing their very lives in the hands of these same people. The problem w/you people is that you think these kinds of utopian systems are going to be run by good, competent people in the way you'd like to see them run, instead of by the same kinds of psychopaths/sociopaths who always rise to the top in authoritarian power structures.
I thank God that this socialist/authoritarian mentality wasn't in force 120 years ago...we'd probably still be riding horses and communicating by letters...
signature
A lot of assumptions there. Those people who aren't farmers for instance are working jobs that contribute to society:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kikzjTfos0s
The main problem with government is that it has been made subservient to a variety of totalitarian interests. You might call them corporations. If government were in better alignment with the will and needs of the people and were MORE democratic (rather than authoritarian) the primary purpose would be ensuring the viability of society over the desires of those who shower politicians with gobs of money, insider tips, speaking engagements, and lucrative consulting or board positions.
Hisich, I think you're fanning the flames there, due to some misunderstandings.
Instead of looking it as a locking mechanism placed upon people, I would try to picture a society where everyone is given a fair chance to at least survive with dignity. And it the term guaranteed salary is cool because I think it'll put more responsibility for citizens to care about civic matters.
Like Andrew Yang, and Scott Santens said, we shouldn't necessarily think of the automation-paradigm as a bad thing, instead we should embrace it and thrive along.
Although the Q of what intentions are behind the corporations working on those AIs is a different topic altogether. Placing taxes on companies that benefit from automation via a added-value tax? I don't see the problem in that, especially when GAFA (Google Apple Facebook Amazon) doesnt pay their taxws.
There's also the idea that this money is "taken" from you. But where does the money go? Well for the majority of people, it'll go to paying the bills, utilities and services essential in daily life, right? So the money is allowed to flow, instead of now where it's being sucked up the pyramid's eye.
I mean our community should know be the most one aware of the incredible scale of the corruption, and the deep state money that goes missing every year, in the trillions.
So I don't know, I can definitely see it becoming corrupted, but only as long as it's a legislative model. Instead, it should be a constitutional right, so that no-one can mess with it, except by a referendum. And since you're at it, why not institute it thru a referendum as well?
On the other hand, placing a leash on the very companies that make up the MIC seems to me like a point for humanity and freedom, instead of the opposite.
PS: Check out Scott Santens, who's been crowdfunded a UBI for a couple years now, explain how it works: http://www.scottsantens.com/basic-income-faq
shamangineer wrote: A lot of assumptions there. Those people who aren't farmers for instance are working jobs that contribute to society:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kikzjTfos0sThe main problem with government is that it has been made subservient to a variety of totalitarian interests. You might call them corporations. If government were in better alignment with the will and needs of the people and were MORE democratic (rather than authoritarian) the primary purpose would be ensuring the viability of society over the desires of those who shower politicians with gobs of money, insider tips, speaking engagements, and lucrative consulting or board positions.
Govt. by its very nature is authoritarian seeking to be totalitarian. Govt. is, itself, a corporation. I don't see democracy--w/i the context of an authoritarian state--as a good thing. I certainly don't think giving every idiot who happens to turn 18 a vote. See Hans Herman Hoppe's "Democracy: The God That Failed". In reality, the more that the state has extended the right of suffrage, the LESS free we've become...I don't think that's coincidence or accidental.
I invite you to check out the nearest govt. housing project to see the results of giving folks 'free' shit...
signature
hisich wrote: Govt. by its very nature is authoritarian seeking to be totalitarian. Govt. is, itself, a corporation. I don't see democracy--w/i the context of an authoritarian state--as a good thing. I certainly don't think giving every idiot who happens to turn 18 a vote. See Hans Herman Hoppe's "Democracy: The God That Failed". In reality, the more that the state has extended the right of suffrage, the LESS free we've become...I don't think that's coincidence or accidental.
I invite you to check out the nearest govt. housing project to see the results of giving folks 'free' shit...
I certainly agree that the electoral suffrage model is deceitful, since once you vote someone in office, you've effectively let your sovereignty away. At least the way it works now.
But I disagree to say government is inherently nefarious in its conception. We certainly gain some benefits by having public services like librairies, firefighters, the military, or the police, even though they may be mis-used in some case. In the case of France, we used to have a solid model of health care that was directly funded by public funds. It's still the case in many european countries as well.
I think of as in every organization, the majority are good people, but the ones at the top are usually, corrupted psycopaths, due to the structures put in place over the last centuries. But then again, it doesn't make all organizations bad.
enjoypolo wrote: Hisich, I think you're fanning the flames there, due to some misunderstandings.
Instead of looking it as a locking mechanism placed upon people, I would try to picture a society where everyone is given a fair chance to at least survive with dignity. And it the term guaranteed salary is cool because I think it'll put more responsibility for citizens to care about civic matters.Like Andrew Yang, and Scott Santens said, we shouldn't necessarily think of the automation-paradigm as a bad thing, instead we should embrace it and thrive along.
Although the Q of what intentions are behind the corporations working on those AIs is a different topic altogether. Placing taxes on companies that benefit from automation via a added-value tax? I don't see the problem in that, especially when GAFA (Google Apple Facebook Amazon) doesnt pay their taxws.There's also the idea that this money is "taken" from you. But where does the money go? Well for the majority of people, it'll go to paying the bills, utilities and services essential in daily life, right? So the money is allowed to flow, instead of now where it's being sucked up the pyramid's eye.
I mean our community should know be the most one aware of the incredible scale of the corruption, and the deep state money that goes missing every year, in the trillions.
So I don't know, I can definitely see it becoming corrupted, but only as long as it's a legislative model. Instead, it should be a constitutional right, so that no-one can mess with it, except by a referendum. And since you're at it, why not institute it thru a referendum as well?
On the other hand, placing a leash on the very companies that make up the MIC seems to me like a point for humanity and freedom, instead of the opposite.PS: Check out Scott Santens, who's been crowdfunded a UBI for a couple years now, explain how it works: https://medium.com/basic-income/the-cost-of-universal-basic-income-is-the-net-transfer-amount-not-the-gross-price-tag-acb8aa5eab73
I'm always struck at how people think that the fictitious entity called "govt" is somehow separate from the people in govt. who claim a divine-right to rule other people or that writing something down and calling it a "constitutional right" somehow magically makes the immoral moral. No matter how you spin it, you're talking about stealing other people's shit.
UBI sounds like a totalitarian's wet-dream of ultimate control.
Those 13 years in a forced govt. indoctrination camp have done a number on you, eh...?
signature
