Science & Technology News

[Mike OReilly]

Originally Posted by Dockhead

Interesting article on Universal Basic Incomes, in the Economist today:

https://www.economist.com/finance-an...l-basic-income

We were discussing this issue upthread.

We'll probably never get something like this through our own deeply polarized political system, which is too bad. A lot of conservatives and libertarians object to different different proposals to improve the welfare state because of perverse incentives created. UBI is nearly free from such effects, so potentially could get much broader political support.

Unfortunately you have to be a subscriber to read the story, but as you know, I think UBI is not only a good idea, I think it's inevitable.

Early on I mused that the pandemic responses from most developed countries mirrored, in some ways, the UBI concept. As I said, it was amusing to see so many former critics embrace these various approaches during times of crisis. It seems that everyone is a cut-throat market capitalists -- right up until it is their throat being cut .

Our (meaning Canada) Liberal Party has been dangling with the notion for many years now. It's mostly been political hot air, but it's coming back again up here:

Liberal MPs, grassroots to push for universal basic income at party convention

[Midnight Son]

Yes Mike, UBI was tried in Manitoba in the 70's
https://basicincome.org/news/2017/12...mmary-results/
The article mentions more locations in North America, and elsewhere. Interesting reading.

'The Canadian government initiated the Manitoba Basic Annual Income Experiment (Mincome) in 1975 after most of the U.S. experiments were winding down. The sample included 1,300 urban and rural families in Winnipeg and Dauphin, Manitoba with incomes below C$13,000 per year. By the time the data collection was completed in 1978, interest in the guaranteed income was seriously on the wane and the Canadian government canceled the project before the data was analyzed.'


Best wishes all.

[Mike OReilly]

Originally Posted by Midnight Son

Yes Mike, UBI was tried in Manitoba in the 70's
https://basicincome.org/news/2017/12...mmary-results/
The article mentions more locations in North America, and elsewhere. Interesting reading.

'The Canadian government initiated the Manitoba Basic Annual Income Experiment (Mincome) in 1975 after most of the U.S. experiments were winding down. The sample included 1,300 urban and rural families in Winnipeg and Dauphin, Manitoba with incomes below C$13,000 per year. By the time the data collection was completed in 1978, interest in the guaranteed income was seriously on the wane and the Canadian government canceled the project before the data was analyzed.'

Best wishes all.

Yes indeed (and this too was mentioned and referenced up-thread ). The Manitoba experiment was one of the earliest, but as you point out, there have been others now, including one in Ontario that was prematurely aborted by our incoming Conservative government.

[Dockhead]

Originally Posted by Mike OReilly

Unfortunately you have to be a subscriber to read the story, but as you know, I think UBI is not only a good idea, I think it's inevitable.

Early on I mused that the pandemic responses from most developed countries mirrored, in some ways, the UBI concept. As I said, it was amusing to see so many former critics embrace these various approaches during times of crisis. It seems that everyone is a cut-throat market capitalists -- right up until it is their throat being cut . . ..

So assuming bad intentions?


Actually there has been support for UBI in certain conservative circles for decades. See: https://areomagazine.com/2018/08/02/...-basic-income/


Also pre-pandemic, in the American Conservative: https://www.theamericanconservative....time-has-come/
"Universal Basic Income -- An Idea Whose Time Has Come."


https://www.realclearpolitics.com/ar...qa_143505.html
Here the excellent combination of UBI and flat tax is discussed.


And supported for many years even by Charles Murray, the arch-libertarian, arch-capitalist economist behind the American Enterprise Institute https://www.washingtontimes.com/news...ist-backs-ubi/


In our idiotic polarized political culture, the one big political question is assumed to be the choice of EITHER capitalism (economic freedom; free enterprise) OR taking care of people. So if you are in favor one thing, then you are at war against the other thing (and everyone who believes in it, and God forbid you would ever LISTEN to anyone from that other tribe). This false dichotomy -- based on wrongheaded thinking which is outdated by at least a century -- could be the very downfall of our civilization.

[Mike OReilly]

Originally Posted by Dockhead

So assuming bad intentions?

Bad intentions? No... just reality. It's a common observation that we often have capitalism for the poor and socialism for the rich. Just look at all the bailouts of "too big to fail" companies.

Anyway, I agree that thoughtful conservative voices have long supported the idea. Indeed, thoughtful people of all political stripes do. But sadly, politicians seems more beholden to other voices:

Originally Posted by Dockhead

In our idiotic polarized political culture, the one big political question is assumed to be the choice of EITHER capitalism (economic freedom; free enterprise) OR taking care of people. So if you are in favor one thing, then you are at war against the other thing (and everyone who believes in it, and God forbid you would ever LISTEN to anyone from that other tribe). This false dichotomy -- based on wrongheaded thinking which is outdated by at least a century -- could be the very downfall of our civilization.

Yeah... this crowd. And I agree with your conclusion.

[Lake-Effect]

Originally Posted by Dockhead

In our idiotic polarized political culture, the one big political question is assumed to be the choice of EITHER capitalism (economic freedom; free enterprise) OR taking care of people. So if you are in favor one thing, then you are at war against the other thing (and everyone who believes in it, and God forbid you would ever LISTEN to anyone from that other tribe). This false dichotomy -- based on wrongheaded thinking which is outdated by at least a century -- could be the very downfall of our civilization.

I presume that the above is mainly referring to the US, and not to the Nordic countries you've been holding up as an example of a better-functioning society.


If that's the case, then I still think that in the US, much of the intensity and vitriol in their polarization is that Americans are fighting each other over a smaller pot of public money (US taxation is ~25% of GDP, vs ~30 to 40% of GDP in the Nordic countries?), and a longer list of social ills to tackle. And a deeper need to make their economy look like it's doing better than it is.

[NPCampbell]

Originally Posted by Dockhead

Interesting article on Universal Basic Incomes, in the Economist today:


https://www.economist.com/finance-an...l-basic-income


We were discussing this issue upthread.



We'll probably never get something like this through our own deeply polarized political system, which is too bad. A lot of conservatives and libertarians object to different different proposals to improve the welfare state because of perverse incentives created. UBI is nearly free from such effects, so potentially could get much broader political support.

I'm one of those that will never vote for UBI. I don't care how people brand it (socialist, Marxist, whatever). I am against it for ethical and moral reasons.

Our country was founded on the promotion of human freedom with a lot of mistakes and fights along the way to ensure it. Forcing me to spend a portion of every day working without compensation for someone else who is perfectly capable of working for themselves is not freedom, it's involuntary servitude at best.

Some may argue that there is an area of compromise here and I would disagree. This is like saying there is always room for a little slavery. Obviously, children, the severely handicapped, etc. fall outside of the definition of those perfectly capable of working for themselves.

[Mike OReilly]

Originally Posted by Dockhead

In our idiotic polarized political culture, the one big political question is assumed to be the choice of EITHER capitalism (economic freedom; free enterprise) OR taking care of people. ... This false dichotomy -- based on wrongheaded thinking which is outdated by at least a century -- could be the very downfall of our civilization.

No sooner is it said than we are given the perfect example. Thanks NP... .

Originally Posted by NPCampbell

I'm one of those that will never vote for UBI. I don't care how people brand it (socialist, Marxist, whatever). I am against it for ethical and moral reasons.

[Dockhead]

Originally Posted by Lake-Effect

I presume that the above is mainly referring to the US, and not to the Nordic countries you've been holding up as an example of a better-functioning society.

Indeed. The Nordic countries are an example of societies which BOTH pursue better and purer market capitalism AND take care of people, and they are a living demonstration that these two things are not mutually exclusive.

Originally Posted by Lake-Effect

If that's the case, then I still think that in the US, much of the intensity and vitriol in their polarization is that Americans are fighting each other over a smaller pot of public money (US taxation is ~25% of GDP, vs ~30 to 40% of GDP in the Nordic countries?), and a longer list of social ills to tackle. And a deeper need to make their economy look like it's doing better than it is.

Yes, but our tax system is a monstrosity and we are already overtaxed for what we get back from the system, so you have to understand why people would resist attempts to just raise them without intelligent reform.



Here is a perfect example of how "tackling social ills" is framed as a war against capitalism and a war against the rich:


https://news.yahoo.com/irs-then-ll-l...103052274.html


This is insane! 6% annual wealth tax? That's basically confiscation, as conservative investments rarely make 6% a year these days. This will lead to mass emigration of rich people and stop other people from wanting to become rich. She will also turn us into an IRS-directed police state by increasing funding of the IRS by 10x after the next 10 years (!!!), with 70% of the new funding directed towards enforcement (!!!). Meanwhile the current administration is already planning a sharp increase in corporate income tax rates, which are already the highest in the world, DOUBLE what they are in some of the Nordic countries. And to eliminate the pass-through deduction for small businesses.


This is NOT how you get to be more like the Nordic countries.

[Lake-Effect]

Originally Posted by Dockhead

Yes, but [the US] tax system is a monstrosity and we are already overtaxed for what we get back from the system, so you have to understand why people would resist attempts to just raise them without intelligent reform.

Here is a perfect example of how "tackling social ills" is framed as a war against capitalism and a war against the rich:

https://news.yahoo.com/irs-then-ll-l...103052274.html

This is insane! ...

This is NOT how you get to be more like the Nordic countries.

It's an editorial, but I understand the point you're making.

Given the perceptions (and in broad strokes, the fact) that the US rich seem to be doing just fine while the bottom rungs are stagnant or suffering, especially during the pandemic... that framing is, perhaps an easier sell to the US public than the simple fact that improving things will require more tax to be collected, period. It's a different flavour of "blame the elites". But hell, many multimillionnaires and billionaires (Gates, Buffett, etc) have publicly stated that they believe the US doesn't tax them enough. And good ole #45 with his $750 tax bill... easy targets, no? And more likely than folks coming together to build a better society. I guess the latest US covid aid package will be an interesting experiment.

[newhaul]

Originally Posted by Dockhead

This is NOT how you get to be more like the Nordic countries.

Correct however it is how you destroy peoples drive to better themselves and crater the worlds economy at the same time .

I hate ti say it and it sounds pompous but without the USA the worlds economy will drop out the bottom .

[Dockhead]

Originally Posted by newhaul

Correct however it is how you destroy peoples drive to better themselves and crater the worlds economy at the same time .

I agree entirely.

Originally Posted by newhaul

. . . I hate ti say it and it sounds pompous but without the USA the worlds economy will drop out the bottom .

Less and less.


Attachment 234641

[newhaul]

Originally Posted by Dockhead

I agree entirely.





Less and less.


Attachment 234641

I don't believe that chart it doesn't take into account the spending of American millitary and support outside of the conus .

[Dockhead]

Originally Posted by newhaul

I don't believe that chart it doesn't take into account the spending of American millitary and support outside of the conus .

Believe me, it does take account. We are becoming less and less relevant. All great empires have their day, and then fade away. We actually started to fade away very quickly compared to the other great ones -- the Romans, the Byzantines, Venice, the Ottomans, the Persians, the Greeks after Alexander, the Mongols, the list goes on. Most of them lasted for a few hundred, some of them a thousand years. Let's be realistic -- the "American century" was somewhat less than a century, a flash in the pan compared to any of the aforementioned.


In centuries to come, my guess is that, we will be remembered only for one thing -- putting a man on the moon. We are besides that one thing, just a footnote in world history. In the books on world history from like, the year 2300, there will be 7 chapters on China. And maybe three or four pages on America. Sad, but true.

[Narfi]

Originally Posted by newhaul

Incorrect the increased burden of paying for that college. Makes it unreasonable for several years

You can go to a trade school for 2 years and come out with a certification that can get you a 75k a year job right out of the gate.
And no college loan debt.

Or you can work in any number of trades learning on the job or under a payed apprenticeship program and accomplish the same thing.

Higher education has a purpose and is needed, but it is not necessary for a majority of the young slaves to debt our society pumps out.