Visit our Popular Forums

geoleo · 07-03-2021, 05:35

Quote:

Originally Posted by AKA-None

I wonder how many ever think about more than just making it through the day? Many seem to be on autopilot letting someone else make the decisions

"Many" are also on autopilot just thinking how to get their next 'fix'. lol

geoleo · 07-03-2021, 05:38

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mike OReilly

Indeed, this is shown over and over in various studies on poverty and Universal Basic Income experiments. A famous one (in Canada anyway) was conducted back in the 1970s. The results are sumarized here:

The Town with No Poverty: The Health Effects of a Canadian Guaranteed Annual Income Field Experiment

The BBC did a feature on it here: https://www.bbc.com/worklife/article...ome-experiment

More recently Ontario ran a UBI trial that was cut (far) short when a new, conservative government, scrapped the project. Despite that, some interesting results emerged:

Southern Ontario’sBasic Income Experience

Here's a CBC story summary: People kept working, became healthier while on basic income: report

And a wiki page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ontari..._Pilot_Project

It certainly "PAID OFF " for those getting paid for doing nothing-- it did not "PAY OFF" for those doing the work to get the money to "PAY OFF". It wasnt good for them.

geoleo · 07-03-2021, 05:56

Most of these discussions relate to what form of government is best. Y Gassett says in one of his books that almost all forms of governments and even combinations of those forms have been tried by now. All fail because of human nature which leads me to think T Jefferson had it correct in his "the government which governs least governs best":. doctrine. Logic predicts that the less there is of something that is prone to fail the less damage it can do when IT fails. Just think how corrupt a One World government would be. my my. lol

Mike OReilly · 07-03-2021, 06:53

Good overview Adelie. This is why I push back to ask what people mean when they try and use "socialism" as some sort of boogeyman slur. I know Newhaul to be a thoughtful person (unlike others here who aren't worth responding to), so I am honestly curious what he means.

It is clear that all functioning democracies employ a mix of free market and socialist solutions. UBI, wherever it has been tested, has shown significant positive outcomes, and few negatives. And as DH says, it is usually found to be far cheaper and easier way to provide existing social services, so it should be something actual fiscal conservatives embrace.

Hearkening back to our earlier discussions, I believe (based on the research and thoughts of people far smarter than I) that we are rapidly transitioning to an economy without jobs. Robotics and automation has long decimated well-paying blue collar jobs. And now AI is eating into so-called white collar tasks. The trajectory is clear.

In a market economy a "job" really has two distinct functions. The first function is to perform a (hopefully) useful and necessary task. The second, equally critical function, is to distribute wealth in society. We combine these two functions in "a job." But as more and more essential tasks are being performed by non-humans, we still need to distribute the wealth in some way.

This is why some version of UBI will become increasingly necessary and beneficial as we move forward.

Lake-Effect · 07-03-2021, 08:07

^^^
This.

A capitalist consumer economy needs consumers.

Also - we're running out of decent paying jobs... yet there are countless people doing important work for a sub-livable wage, or for free: child-rearing, day-care, care for the elderly, classroom assistants, all manner of volunteer work... It's about time that these contributions are recognized, and that people are able to work less in order to also make those important contributions. It's about time that the wealth of our times makes everyone's life better.

And, a UBI is fairer, cheaper, and orders of magnitude easier to administer than the current patchwork of supports.

geoleo · 07-03-2021, 08:12

Who deciedes who gets what from whom?

geoleo · 07-03-2021, 08:17

What keeps those in charge of giving out money to those who keep them in power and from self dealing???? Their altruism???lololol

Lake-Effect · 07-03-2021, 08:19

Quote:

Originally Posted by geoleo

Who deciedes who gets what from whom?

With a UBI, there's no decision. EVERYONE gets the UBI, and jobs pay on top of the UBI. Taxes collected progressively as before.

There's the from and the to.

Mike OReilly · 07-03-2021, 08:29

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lake-Effect

A capitalist consumer economy needs consumers.

Very true. After all, people need to consume to stay alive and thrive. It's why during these days of pandemic woe most wealthy governments have adopted some form of UBI, either in direct payments, or other social supports. It's a way to keep people alive, and keep the economy from collapsing.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lake-Effect

Also - we're running out of decent paying jobs... yet there are countless people doing important work for a sub-livable wage, or for free: child-rearing, day-care, care for the elderly, classroom assistants, all manner of volunteer work... It's about time that these contributions are recognized...

Indeed. It's interesting to see that when the shyte really hits the fan, we all see who is more valuable to society. It's not the investment banker or the fancy lawyer who keeps society going. It the grocery store clerk, nurse, teacher or personal support worker. Yet look at how the market rewards these differing tasks.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lake-Effect

And, a UBI is fairer, cheaper, and orders of magnitude easier to administer than the current patchwork of supports.

Yes, and in many ways, it's also more effective. It also empowers workers to say no to crappy work and poor pay. This is the reason some people object to it. It gives people more power to negotiate better wages.

geoleo · 07-03-2021, 08:37

I ask again to the two Marx and Engels on this thread.....1. Just who (be explicit) decides who gets how much from who--2. and just who decides who the first who are??????

geoleo · 07-03-2021, 08:38

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lake-Effect

With a UBI, there's no decision. EVERYONE gets the UBI, and jobs pay on top of the UBI. Taxes collected progressively as before.

There's the from and the to.

Thats no answer .

Lake-Effect · 07-03-2021, 08:41

Quote:

Originally Posted by geoleo

Thats no answer .

It's an accurate and complete answer. Do some reading, for a change.

geoleo · 07-03-2021, 08:47

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lake-Effect

It's an accurate and complete answer. Do some reading, for a change.

Read what ?? Das Kapital? I read that garbage when I was 18.

Ded reckoner · 07-03-2021, 08:54

Quote:

Greenhouses are poor proxies for the natural world. Not only are CO2 levels sometimes elevated, but also nutrient levels, water amount, temperature, pesticide levels, with all interaction with the natural world strictly controlled.

High CO2 levels cause plants to thicken their leaves, which could worsen climate change effects

Quote:

Like I said, I prefer to get my climate science from climate scientists.

Studies on increased CO2 concentrations invariably show improved photosynthetic production above today’s 400ppm (0.04 percent) CO2 concentration levels. Some studies show there is an optimum concentration and then there are declines in productivity. But, all show better end results with higher than current concentrations. This link is very good for defining technical terms. This link will interest marijuana growers and is included because the contention is the optimum CO2 concentration is 10000ppm (!). I have a particular fondness for this study out of the Jr Academy of Science. In any case, we need to remember that CO2 emissions are natural. Volcanoes outgas tremendous volumes, organic matter combusts and decays, and aerobic organisms respire.