Universal Basic Income likely in India by 2020.

[james03]

I have an idea.  Cut off the moslems and allow Cajuns to immigrate and live tax-free if they agree to trap the crawfish.  Then set up Cajun restaurants and have huge crawfish boils.  They usually involve large consumption of beer.  After Brexit you can even export them to the US.

You can also start stocking large mouth bass.  They eat a ton of crawfish.  They'll eat a lot of other stuff, but they are fun to catch and decent to eat.  I've got some big ones in my pond.  Sometimes you'll find them with crawfish in their mouth.

[dellery]

It's hard to thingk of anything more tyrannical, currently on the table, than this idea of a UBI.
The only thing this will lead to is wage slavery.
All these slaughter-worthy hipsters and millennials claim the current system is wage slavery, while they're supporting actual wage slavery.

Oh Lord, please let the missiles start flying.

[james03]

Greg has brought another one to the fold.  Greg expects it to be The Great Comet of Chastisement^(tm), not missiles.  But that would work too.

[JackoPaul]

may be it could be a plague of crayfish of biblical proportions
that's assuming salvation doesn't arrive in the form of the large mouth bass

[MeanGene]

Devastated British Rivers is a bit of an exaggeration.

With the movement of people these movements or animal are inevitable.

Bye bye red squirrel.  Who cares?  And why?

We introduced the horse to America.  Now it is part of your cowboy heritage.

The Spanish are the one's that introduced horses to America. The escaped stock moved up via Mexico and out on the great plains, and it is from these feral horses that the much vaunted (and frankly overrated) horse cultures of the Comanche, Apache, and Sioux developed. Much of American cowboy culture is also Spanish based by way of Mexico and Texas. England had almost nothing to do with it.

Not to worry though, the English were too busy deliberately spreading things like law and literacy to worry themselves over accidentally introducing something as unimportant as livestock.

[Greg]

The Great Crayfish of Chastisement.

Lobsters become the dominant species and invade the public sewer system.

You can't even sit down for a dump in peace.

I really would envy the dead.

[Greg]

Devastated British Rivers is a bit of an exaggeration.

With the movement of people these movements or animal are inevitable.

Bye bye red squirrel.  Who cares?  And why?

We introduced the horse to America.  Now it is part of your cowboy heritage.

The Spanish are the one's that introduced horses to America. The escaped stock moved up via Mexico and out on the great plains, and it is from these feral horses that the much vaunted (and frankly overrated) horse cultures of the Comanche, Apache, and Sioux developed. Much of American cowboy culture is also Spanish based by way of Mexico and Texas. England had almost nothing to do with it.

Not to worry though, the English were too busy deliberately spreading things like law and literacy to worry themselves over accidentally introducing something as unimportant as livestock.

When I said we.  I meant the European colonisers in general.  Not Forum members or the British

[james03]

may be it could be a plague of crayfish of biblical proportions

If it could only be so.  I actually encountered something like that.

I was working out in West Oklahoma.  I stumbled upon a crawfish boil.  The contractor had brought dudes up from Louisiana with live crawdads and a huge boiler.  They were Cajuns with their LSU hats on.  Turns out the boys in West OK didn't want to eat any crawfish.  The Cajuns found out I used to live in NOLA and knew all about crawfish.  They'd keep coming out with tons of crawdads.  I had crawfish flopping out of my ears and nose.  It got ridiculous.  That was the most crawfish I had ever eaten, and I've taken part in the insane New Orleans crawfish boils.

[The Curt Jester]

The Great Crayfish of Chastisement.

Lobsters become the dominant species and invade the public sewer system.

You can't even sit down for a dump in peace.

I really would envy the dead.

To continue the theme, we could make all the churches look like giant crayfish.   I actually interviewed at a church that looks like one.    The pastor told me that it was supposed to look like a fish and I told him it looked more like a lobster.  He laughed.   He also offered me the job.

[MeanGene]

Devastated British Rivers is a bit of an exaggeration.

With the movement of people these movements or animal are inevitable.

Bye bye red squirrel.  Who cares?  And why?

We introduced the horse to America.  Now it is part of your cowboy heritage.

The Spanish are the one's that introduced horses to America. The escaped stock moved up via Mexico and out on the great plains, and it is from these feral horses that the much vaunted (and frankly overrated) horse cultures of the Comanche, Apache, and Sioux developed. Much of American cowboy culture is also Spanish based by way of Mexico and Texas. England had almost nothing to do with it.

Not to worry though, the English were too busy deliberately spreading things like law and literacy to worry themselves over accidentally introducing something as unimportant as livestock.

When I said we.  I meant the European colonisers in general.  Not Forum members or the British

[yt]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OjYoNL4g5Vg[/yt]

[Xavier]

Agreed, Mikemac. India's next election is next year, and Mr. Arvind Subramanian, the economic advisor who proposed this, is affiliated with the congress party. Congress party was led by Sonia Gandhi, an Italian Roman Catholic who married into the Gandhi family, until recently; Her son Rahul Gandhi who took over may be the next Prime Minister. My opinion is poverty could rapidly decrease in India in the next 10-12 years if a reasonable Basic Income (either universal, or quasi-universal) policy is implemented. It will begin in a few states. Since it's known India has historically struggled with poverty, if the policy proves successful, other states and other countries will also more widely adopt it.

An article by Subramanian: "Right now, there are schemes for every possible state of the world. There are schemes for bad harvests (monsoon failures) such as crop insurance and loan waivers. There are schemes for good harvests (bumper crops that depress prices) such as MSP-plus-procurement and price deficiency schemes. And then there are schemes independent of outcomes such as the various subsidies on inputs (fertilisers, seeds, power, and water).

Rythu Bandhu today is provided in addition to these schemes and hence can become fiscally unsustainable. However, if Rythu Bandhu is instead used to replace some or all of these schemes three critical advantages would ensue.

First, the surfeit of state capacity/administrative apparatus as well as financial resources — and all the patronage and corruption and inefficiency — devoted to administering the plethora of schemes for good, bad, and all states-of-the-world could be economised on.

Second, farm income could be decoupled from production, avoiding the serious distortions that have been created, especially from over-production of cereals (rice stocks are becoming pest-infested mountains) and the over-use of water and fertilisers.

Third, the magnitudes that can be transferred can be increased so that farm incomes can be augmented substantially and quickly. One illustrative calculation is as follows: eliminating the fertiliser and power subsidy in Punjab would finance an annual transfer of about ?92,000 to every cultivator or ?50,000 to every agricultural worker. This compares with median agricultural household income of ?1,50,000 in Punjab, according to official estimates for the year 2013."

1,50,000 Rs is about 2500 dollars. 92000 is about 1500. That's an annual amount, rather small by global standards, but it should be enough for India. If, for e.g. 50% of those who are well-off, freely choose to forego it, the amount remaining to be distributed to the rest would be doubled. If the prices of food and other basic necessities remain at a reasonable level, extreme poverty would be virtually eliminated.

Of course, Mother St. Theresa of Calcutta ministered in India for many years, seeing the face of Christ crucified in the forsaken, trying to uplift the poor, and softening some hard hearts toward Christianity; there are some 90,000 nuns in India today. My priest said these three regions - India, China, and Africa combined, which together have a population of almost half the world - will play an important role in the future of global Christianity. Philip Jenkins estimates there will be 450 million Catholics in Africa alone by 2050. It is likely there will be 1 billion Catholics in these 3 regions of the world alone by then. When Rome is restored, the universal Church will be as well. The Church runs many charitable institutions that must continue both to evangelize and to serve. Economically speaking, we need a civilization of love, that is inspired by both productivity and charity. One that enables rapid growth along with equitable distribution of that growth. My opinion is the distribution i.e. the level of the basic income handed out should be linked to growth, that is the only way an economy will simultaneously be both self-sustaining and also maximize the incentive to collectively produce at a quick growth rate.

[drummerboy]

Then again, the Brits paid the Indians to kill rats once and so enterprising poos started breeding rats, I can just imagine indians taking laxatives so they can have more poo to trade for money. Perhaps the pundits should judge each deposit and pay based upon quality.

Now they're pumping out counterfeit viagra in bathroom stalls using rat poison, funny how their "karma" works

[longstrangetrip5]

the housing situation in the US is DEPLORABLE

only the wealthy can afford to live in a decent place, or the well-off

and then we wonder why there are so many homeless people. Seattle is shipping them off to relatives in other states. to me  that is a weird idea because some homeless people do not have family or if they do, their family is psycho or whatever.. Why not just build affordable housing? a homeless person does not gripe if she or he has to live in a one-room shack and maybe share a bathroom or shower, as long as it is a decent place, low level of crime, and doesn't have a landlord from Hell. But low income housing projects in this country.. many of them are hell on earth. I have heard the same thing about homeless shelters (control freak administrators, etc)

[Xavier]

I think a Universal Basic Income would be very good for the U.S. and for developed countries also, but what is really needed for it to be implemented worldwide is the Abolition of Central Banking. What is central banking? Central banking is like a fraudster coming up to a prince and telling him, "I'm afraid you cannot be trusted with all the gold in your household. So give it all to me, and I will lend it to you in small amounts from time to time at large rates of usury." And the poor dupes fell for the scam. A 350 year old scam that began only after the Church was taken out of the way. In America, from time to time, courageous Presidents like Abraham Lincoln have opposed the banking scam.

Please read and Bookmark St. Michael's Journal Website in its entirety if you would like to know more. Particularly this article. https://www.michaeljournal.org/articles/politics/item/abraham-lincoln-and-john-f-kennedy It holds the key to undoing what zionist bankers like Rothschild have done to Christian civilization, and restoring Mother Church to Her privileged position in western society.

" Abraham Lincoln and John F. Kennedy

Two great presidents of the United States assassinated for the cause of justice

November 22, 2003 marks the 40th anniversary of the assassination of U.S. President John F. Kennedy, and a majority of Americans still believe that there was a conspiracy behind this assassination. Both Abraham Lincoln and Kennedy were assassinated while they held the high office of President of the United States. Both of these former presidents had also created their own money system to run the United States while they were in office. Is this just a coincidence?

Why assassinate a President? Why must everything be kept so covered up? What are they trying to hide from the American people? The facts will speak for themselves.
Abraham Lincoln

Abraham LincolnDuring the Civil War (1861-1865), President Lincoln needed money to finance the War from the North. The Bankers were going to charge him 24% to 36% interest. Lincoln was horrified and went away greatly distressed, for he was a man of principle and would not think of plunging his beloved country into a debt that the country would find impossible to pay back.

Eventually President Lincoln was advised to get Congress to pass a law authorizing the printing of full legal tender Treasury notes to pay for the War effort. Lincoln recognized the great benefits of this issue. At one point he wrote:

"... (we) gave the people of this Republic the greatest blessing they have ever had – their own paper money to pay their own debts..."

The Treasury notes were printed with green ink on the back, so the people called them "Greenbacks".

Lincoln printed 400 million dollars worth of Greenbacks (the exact amount being $449,338,902), money that he delegated to be created, a debt-free and interest-free money to finance the War. It served as legal tender for all debts, public and private. He printed it, paid it to the soldiers, to the U.S. Civil Service employees, and bought supplies for war.

Shortly after that happened, "The London Times" printed the following: "If that mischievous financial policy, which had its origin in the North American Republic, should become indurated down to a fixture, then that Government will furnish its own money without cost. It will pay off debts and be without a debt. It will have all the money necessary to carry on its commerce. It will become prosperous beyond precedent in the history of the civilized governments of the world. The brains and the wealth of all coun­tries will go to North America. That govern­ment must be destroyed, or it will destroy every monarchy on the globe."

The Bankers obviously understood. The only thing, I repeat, the only thing that is a threat to their power is sovereign govern­ments printing interest-free and debt-free paper money. They know it would break the power of the international Bankers.
In retaliation

After this was published in "The London Times", the British Government, which was controlled by the London and other European Bankers, moved to support the Confederate South, hoping to defeat Lincoln and the Union, and destroy this government which they said had to be destroyed.

They were stopped by two things. First, Lincoln knew the British people, and he knew that Britain would not support slavery, so he issued the Emancipation Proclamation, which declared that slavery in the United States was abolished. At this point, the London Bankers could not openly support the Confederacy because the British people simply would not stand for their country supporting slavery.

Second, the Czar of Russia sent a portion of the Russian navy to the United States with orders that its admiral would operate under the command of Abraham Lincoln. These ships of the Russian navy then became a threat to the ships of the British navy which had intended to break the blockade and help the South.

The North won the War, and the Union was preserved. America remained as one nation.

Of course, the Bankers were not going to give in that easy, for they were determined to put an end to Lincoln's interest-free, debt-free Greenbacks. He was assassinated by an agent of the Bankers shortly after the War ended.

Thereafter, Congress revoked the Green­back Law and enacted, in its place, the National Banking Act. The national banks were to be privately owned and the national bank notes they issued were to be interest bearing. The Act also provided that the Greenbacks should be retired from circulation as soon as they came back to the Treasury in payment of taxes.

In 1972, the United States Treasury Department was asked to compute the amount of interest that would have been paid if that 400 million dollars would have been borrowed at interest instead of being issued by Abraham Lincoln. They did some computations, and a few weeks later, the United States Treasury Department said the United States Government saved 4 billion dollars in interest because Lincoln had created his own money. So you can about imagine how much the Government has paid and how much we owe solely on the basis of interest.
The Federal Reserve Act

There were changes in the money and banking laws for the next fifty years. Finally, in 1913, the Bankers were able to get their Federal Reserve Act passed through Congress which replaced the National Banking Act that had earlier replaced the Greenback Law. If the Government would have continued the policy of Abraham Lincoln, the warnings given in "The London Times" would have come to pass. America would be a debt-free nation, the most prosperous in the world. And the brains and the wealth of the world would have come to America.

But with this Federal Reserve Act being passed, Congress gave up Its power to create its own money that it was given in the United States Constitution, and gave this power over to private Bankers who called themselves the Federal Reserve. The Bankers had achieved their ultimate goal, for now the United States operated under a central bank that was privately owned. They now had the power to run the country by controlling the creation of the money, and were free to charge the interest they so desired.

As Mayer Anselm Rothschild once said: "Permit me to issue and control the money of a nation, and I care not who makes its laws..."

[PerEvangelicaDicta]

There are many outstanding videos explaining fractional reserve banking / fiat money.