81–90 of 192 posts
[flagged]
Things look pretty dystopian as it stands, and if concentration of wealth continues, we'll speed down that dark road even faster. If not UBI, what other solution is there? Especially as automation sweeps through cognitive work?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
As a European I already think there is not much democracy left in the USA. At a federal level it's moving towards an autocracy at a rapid pace, and a large part of the electorate seems keen to cheer it on. At a local level money, gerrymandering and propaganda make it impossible to elect politicians who give a fair representation of people's interests. And with a two party system, it's more than likely that both of th…
Its the exact same thing in the majority of European countries.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Things look pretty dystopian as it stands, and if concentration of wealth continues, we'll speed down that dark road even faster. If not UBI, what other solution is there? Especially as automation sweeps through cognitive work?
We need to be radically cutting immigration now along with collapsing birth rates such that worker supply and worker demand reach equilibrium.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
That doesn't solve the whole problem. It requires more interaction with the state instead of just allowing an opt out. It also doesn't allow opting out at the paying in layer.
> It also doesn't allow opting out at the paying in layer. This is the case for every other program , right?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's mainly wealth distribution. The top percent owns too much while the bottom 80% owns too little. There won't be inflation if you take money from the top and give it to the bottom. The total amount of money stays the same.
When you say the wealthy own too much, you mean they own productive assets. They run companies. Sure there are some that just have a pile of cash sitting in a vault but that's rare. So if you take away their wealth you're transferring ownership and control from one group of people (who have managed and grown that productive asset) to another (randomly chosen). Naturally you would expect the productive assets to stop…
> So if you take away their wealth you're transferring ownership and control from one group of people (who have managed and grown that productive asset) to another (randomly chosen). Naturally you would expect the productive assets to stop being so productive...
No. People who run companies very, very frequently do not own them outright or even have a controlling stake.
So even in an extremist toy model, where you "take away their wealth," you can still leave the existing manager in place or make the former owner a manager-employee.
You could even be very capitalist about it, and motivate the former owner to do a to do a good job as a manager, by making it clear that he will starve if he doesn't (that's how capitalism works for most people).
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I don’t really have any horse in the race but the experiments I’ve seen are hardly universal nor sufficiently guaranteed. It’s basically just a one time payment spread over some period, so it’s not surprising people would use money they know won’t be around forever for essentials. On the other hand it would be nice to know what happened with all of the Covid checks since that also was given to many, but again hardly…
Strictly economic theoretical speaking, inflation wouldn't happen if the money isn't "new" money, but instead is fully reallocated money. A likely picture would be less money going into assets (where wealthy people money tends to end up) and more money going into consumables (where poor people money tends to end up). However the money pile should stay the same all else being equal.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
We need to be radically cutting immigration now along with collapsing birth rates such that worker supply and worker demand reach equilibrium.
Aaaaand there it is.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's mainly wealth distribution. The top percent owns too much while the bottom 80% owns too little. There won't be inflation if you take money from the top and give it to the bottom. The total amount of money stays the same.
> There won't be inflation if you take money from the top and give it to the bottom. The total amount of money stays the same. Our system is far from perfect but I believe history shows that communism is even worse.
I'm sure if we took all the top math, quant, economy and finance grads in the world and book them for a few months in that fancy Swiss Alps resort at Davos where world leaders meet up every year to discuss how to screw us, they could come up with a better system than the one we currently have.
The problem is most likely the new system would not end up favoring the same winners of the current system, hence there's no desire to ever change the status quo, so we have the communist system as a perpetual boogieman to discourage any other systems being trialed as if that's the only other option.
[flagged]
Sure there is. Just give it back if you don't want it. https://www.fiscal.treasury.gov/public/gifts-to-government.h...
Just like donos to bathtub streamers and influencers via patreon, this is also a significant waste of money and time.
Doesn’t look like these gifts would be tax deductible either. Lol
Unrestricted campaign donations is a huge issue in US politics. It allows for the repeated undermining of democracy in favour of rich people's interests. It is anti-democratic to the core. And I do not mean rich people who are in the upper 10% of income, it favours the ultra rich for whom a $100,000 political donation is pocket change.
For this election cycle, the maximum campaign donation is $3,300, the cap for a committee donation is $2,000, etc. See: https://www.fec.gov/help-candidates-and-committees/candidate...
I'm curious as to where you are seeing unrestricted donations. I'm also curious as to the reasoning by which you think this would undermine democracy, given that the election result is still being determined by the voters, and the candidates seek money primarily to use in their attempt to persuade voters.