Why is the Ruling Class promoting UBI...?

I would certainly be wary of what billionares would propose on this front - specifically structuring it to eliminate current benefits and provide less to citizens in the process. But that does not mean that it is not an idea with potential for alleviating poverty, desperation, stress, and provide for more independent employment opportunities.

I tend to agree with this bit from the opednews piece for instance:
"But this does not mean that the world will be a good world when robots do all the work and humans do none of it. In a good world, robots will do as much of the unpleasant or boring or dangerous work as possible, and humans will do things (many of which were never done before at all!) FOR EACH OTHER to make the world even better than it is today."

True indeed, and I think with UBI some of the jobs that were automated might make a return, but perhaps not in a large way economically. It would not be surprising to see people start gardening more and producing local food if things were structured right. We can use a fraction of the land currently used for industrial farming by using more intensive methods at a local scale as waste and productivity could be improved without the need for automation or chemicals. And guess what, working outside with plants in the sun has a multitude of health benefits.

The following bit I do not tend to agree with as it seems to make rather large assumptions (which have not been borne out in field experiments).

"For example, in the past most people had to work on farms to produce our food, and NOBODY created computer games. Now very few people are required to plow farm fields and instead people are freed from that task to do things such as create computer games (and perform in theatrical productions and be medical-research scientists, etc.). What makes for a better world is when people contribute reasonably according to ability toward making it a better world for each other. In a good world like this, the principle is "From each according to reasonable ability, to each according to reasonable need or desire, with scarce things equitably rationed according to need."

It would be a terrible world, however, if people no longer did things to help make it a better world for each other. This is true no matter how much robots do. A world in which people used the ubiquity of robots as an excuse for not doing anything to make life better for others is a nightmarish world, and its principle is the freeloader's principle: "Take from others but don't give anything in return even if you are able to."

This is why people (such as Robert Reich who calls robots "i-everything" devices) who defend UBI by arguing that "Soon robots will do all the work and people will all need to be paid to do nothing" are wrong. No! Robots will NEVER do all the work, unless it's a nightmarish world based on the freeloader principle where sick people have nothing but robots caring for them and the only entertainment is provided by robots and so forth."

That does indeed sound like a nightmarish world, but seriously if I asked someone what they would do with 20 million dollars (in most people's mind, infinite resources, far exceeding anything resembling UBI) would they say: I would be content to stare at my navel and be entertained by robots. I think there might be a revolt out of pure existential angst and boredom before 5 years was up in this scenario. You wouldn't be able to make people do nothing if you tried. I mean, look at David Graeber's work on bullshit jobs, even in that case people are doing things (typically online) even though in order to be paid they pretend otherwise.

Look man, I think the links you posted are fair to be skeptical of a UBI at first glance. Especially when it comes out of Zuckerberg and the Bilderbergers. I have many things to say about that:

1) The billionaires didn't come up with UBI. A more accurate assessment would be that they co-opted it (Wolf in a Sheep's clothing), and in the case of the Fabians, you're right that they are "Leftists" (although that's just marketing).

2) I'd say they gain moral support in the eyes of the media/public for advocating a scheme like that, since they (the MIC) are the ones investing the most in automation. So I'm suggesting that's optics.

3) A UBI is a tool. Like any, it can be used for growth, or weaponized to death. But I don't think that's an inherent property of UBI, but of corruption and manipulation (which goes back to point one).

shamangineer wrote: I would certainly be wary of what billionares would propose on this front - specifically structuring it to eliminate current benefits and provide less to citizens in the process. But that does not mean that it is not an idea with potential for alleviating poverty, desperation, stress, and provide for more independent employment opportunities.

I tend to agree with this bit from the opednews piece for instance:
"But this does not mean that the world will be a good world when robots do all the work and humans do none of it. In a good world, robots will do as much of the unpleasant or boring or dangerous work as possible, and humans will do things (many of which were never done before at all!) FOR EACH OTHER to make the world even better than it is today."

True indeed, and I think with UBI some of the jobs that were automated might make a return, but perhaps not in a large way economically. It would not be surprising to see people start gardening more and producing local food if things were structured right. We can use a fraction of the land currently used for industrial farming by using more intensive methods at a local scale as waste and productivity could be improved without the need for automation or chemicals. And guess what, working outside with plants in the sun has a multitude of health benefits.

The following bit I do not tend to agree with as it seems to make rather large assumptions (which have not been borne out in field experiments).

"For example, in the past most people had to work on farms to produce our food, and NOBODY created computer games. Now very few people are required to plow farm fields and instead people are freed from that task to do things such as create computer games (and perform in theatrical productions and be medical-research scientists, etc.). What makes for a better world is when people contribute reasonably according to ability toward making it a better world for each other. In a good world like this, the principle is "From each according to reasonable ability, to each according to reasonable need or desire, with scarce things equitably rationed according to need."

It would be a terrible world, however, if people no longer did things to help make it a better world for each other. This is true no matter how much robots do. A world in which people used the ubiquity of robots as an excuse for not doing anything to make life better for others is a nightmarish world, and its principle is the freeloader's principle: "Take from others but don't give anything in return even if you are able to."

This is why people (such as Robert Reich who calls robots "i-everything" devices) who defend UBI by arguing that "Soon robots will do all the work and people will all need to be paid to do nothing" are wrong. No! Robots will NEVER do all the work, unless it's a nightmarish world based on the freeloader principle where sick people have nothing but robots caring for them and the only entertainment is provided by robots and so forth."

That does indeed sound like a nightmarish world, but seriously if I asked someone what they would do with 20 million dollars (in most people's mind, infinite resources, far exceeding anything resembling UBI) would they say: I would be content to stare at my navel and be entertained by robots. I think there might be a revolt out of pure existential angst and boredom before 5 years was up in this scenario. You wouldn't be able to make people do nothing if you tried.

Hundred percent agree. I think Robots/AI will replace many workers, in various fields: manufacturing, customer service. But even those will always require some human oversight. In fact it's demonstrated numerous times that Robot - Human synergy is more productive in both productivity and creativity (I don't have the links now but I can fetch em later)

I also agree hundred percent that NEW jobs will be created, ones that'll require ever more human-reasoning-and-will. I think the liberation of work by robots will lead to an artisanal and artistic renaissance (let's be crazy). Maybe not immediately, but over short-medium term I can see it.

But I digress, I also think Doctors will be replaced by AI/Robots, but not Healers. And so that's an example where human-touch is required, and always will be. And even if you have John Keely type robots (or the kind seen in Interstellar), I think that synergy will be all the more better for the world.

The next 10-20 years are going to be interesting, eh...?

hisich wrote: The next 10-20 years are going to be interesting, eh...?

They always are.

i bumped the old thread, i was trying to find this one. ill be in jail in the future for stealing and hating the government, unless we can start off with a clean plate or however they say it.

robots need to leearn to not build so many cars first or its dumb people
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CRvYt5Fm7NI
ive only had a car for a couple years, ive been walking my whole life.

While I don't trust them at all, a rational billionaire would support UBI and other pro-labour policies. They are so rich their standard of living would be unaffected, but if the society becomes unstable, they can lose everything. Once upon a time, Wall Street bankers asked the government to tax them more because of this.

hugh johnson wrote: While I don't trust them at all, a rational billionaire would support UBI and other pro-labour policies. They are so rich their standard of living would be unaffected, but if the society becomes unstable, they can lose everything. Once upon a time, Wall Street bankers asked the government to tax them more because of this.

There are some who are taking this stance, but you have to take a hard look at what each suggests.

hugh johnson wrote:

3) A UBI is a tool.

Same thing could be said of slavery...its just a 'tool' which can be used for whatever purposes the masters deem fit.

hisich wrote: Same thing could be said of slavery...its just a 'tool' which can be used for whatever purposes the masters deem fit.

That is such a ridiculous association to create.

hugh johnson wrote: That is such a ridiculous association to create.

You saying that a Ruling Class doling-out money to a Ruled Class (from where the Ruling Class gets the money in the first place) is akin to a "tool" is what is actually ridiculous.

Same as when people call "govt" (which is actually a group of Rulers) a "tool".

Go answer my 7 Q's for UBI proponents if you can...

Its a bit like the esoteric reason they abolished slavery - they had to pay for the care of the elderly slaves or their family would revolt. make them wages slaves instead and they have to pay for their own medical & pension.

So UBI could easily be used in a similar way. They don't have to pay for the medical and care cost of the autistic offspring - they will be given a UBI, any care cost will have to be burdened by parents and family, or they will be locked up to act as extremely low cost prison workers.

It will also be used to control the masses much like the social credit scheme is now used in China - significant number of people are not allowed to travel out of their State or abroad because they or a family member has a low score.
Similarly UBI will be docked if you post anything that might get flagged as "outside the box thinking" were already seeing it with the SJW backlash and social shaming of any perceived slight to a Libtard hot topic/minority of the week.

It will reduce the Goverments costs in administering benefits to the poor needy and disabled - no more means testing, no more buildings for the administrators, no more paperwork, just 1 big payroll computer that will push out a weekly amount to every registered citizen (UBI Slave) adn it will be up to them to be responsible for how they use the money - perhaps it will encourage the addicts to off themselves when their is no safety net.

reduce their costs
reduce their burden to take care of unproductive citizens
increase their control of productive citizens
likely have backdoor abilities to kill off, disable or give terminal diseases to trouble makers.
divide family or social groups and better able to control the individual.

hisich wrote: You saying that a Ruling Class doling-out money to a Ruled Class (from where the Ruling Class gets the money in the first place) is akin to a "tool" is what is actually ridiculous.

Same as when people call "govt" (which is actually a group of Rulers) a "tool".

Go answer my 7 Q's for UBI proponents if you can...

I said no such thing. But it is a tool, just like any government policy.