Suscipe Domine Traditional Catholic Forum

Pope Francis is in favor of UBI. From: https://www.ucanews.com/news/why-pope-francis-is-pushing-for-universal-basic-income/

What do you all think of UBI, could it work? I've long felt some kind of "quasi-UBI", for some section of the lower half of the population, could be useful. Most of us on this forum are probably in the "upper-50%", monetarily speaking, wherever we live? Would we be ok with a Q-UBI for the bottom half, even though it wouldn't help us personally, and probably even hurt us a little, but make society better off?

The writer of this article is Indian, and he mentions one Q-UBI scheme in the Indian context, proposed by PM candidate Rahul Gandhi.  This earlier article also proposed one simple form of Q-UBI, and a simple way it could be paid for: "The Union Budget for 2020 will be presented soon. Instituting a social dividend of at least Rs 1000 per month for the 40% poorest families in our country would be a huge step forward toward almost eliminating poverty. GST collection for January alone would almost pay for it [40% of 25 Crore Households in India*1000=10,000 Crore p.m=1.2 lakh Crore per annum. GST collection was 1.15 lakh Crore. It is certainly do-able]" Link (https://www.indiancatholicmatters.org/a-catholic-perspective-how-india-can-make-it-to-a-gdp-10-trillion-economy-by-2030/) Rs 1000 in dollar terms is barely $14-15. 40% of India's 1.25 billion population=500 million people would be helped by such a Quasi-UBI. It's up to each country individually to design what works best for them, but imo we'll see more of this in this decade.

Thoughts from people here? God Bless.

Article: "Workers across the world are looking forward to the day capitalism takes the road of human equity with universal basic income (UBI), which would give them much-needed succor after the trial by fire of the Covid-19 pandemic.

Pope Francis is among the world's economists, thinkers and billionaires who support UBI as a way of altering the relationship between capital and labor, the two main pillars of the laissez-faire system that wants to keep the government outside all capitalist activities.

The relation between capital and labor cannot be the same once UBI becomes a policy, promising every adult — rich and poor, working and non-working — a regular income from the state.

High-profile policymakers have concluded that after disruptive digital technologies become part of and parcel of social life in the new norm of the post-Covid-19 world, privatization of profit and socialization of loss will not go in tandem in the long run.

In the coming years, artificial intelligence, robotics and automation will render the toiling human capital redundant worldwide.

Cars and trucks without drivers will reduce millions of jobs in transportation, while national armies will be replaced by a sea of autonomous drones and, eventually, actors will be shown the door and movie production will thrive without much human labor.

By 2030, the talk of the town will be the automation of operations.

Warren Buffett and Bill Gates, among the elites of the world, Milton Friedman and Thomas Paine, among thinkers, and Pope Francis, among spiritual leaders, have put their trust in UBI.

Other fans of UBI include Nobel economics laureates Peter Diamond and Christopher Pissarides, tech czars like Mark Zuckerberg and billionaire oligarchs like Elon Musk.

In his recently published book, the pope renewed his pledge to UBI after the pandemic exacerbated the rift between people and technology and between the haves and the have-nots.

Related News-Covid-19 fuels hunger and poverty in BangladeshCovid-19 fuels hunger and poverty in BangladeshMalaysian government 'hiding true poverty rate'Malaysian government 'hiding true poverty rate'Cambodian garment workers mired in poverty despite stimulusCambodian garment workers mired in poverty despite stimulusIndia's Covid-19 strategy helps poverty spiralIndia's Covid-19 strategy helps poverty spiral
In Let Us Dream: The Path to a Better Future, co-written with Briton Austen Ivereigh, Pope Francis strongly advocates a basic income.

"The UBI could reshape relations in the labor market, guaranteeing people the dignity of refusing employment terms that trap them in poverty," Pope Francis wrote.

Those who cite UBI as the key catalyst to the technology-driven transition go to the extent of saying that if the top 1,000 transnational companies are fairly taxed, a modest UBI for people across the world is a possibility.

In Western cities where UBI has successfully been implemented, the working population has welcomed the modern version of England's Poor Law.

They see UBI paving the way for the abolition of "wage slavery" to which the working professionals are unknowingly tied to.

Now that the pandemic has disrupted the global economy, UBI has returned from the fringes to the mainstream.

Pope Francis is actively pushing it because the poor are at the center of his pontificate. For him, a Catholic Church that does not speak and act for the poor of the world is no church at all.

Social protection in Asia

Decades of unequal economic growth, marked by severe exploitation, recurring financial crises and the launch of disruptive digital technologies and ecological disasters, have exhausted the Asian workforce as their bargaining power has diminished.

Due to this, Asia perennially remains the hub for cheap labor for the world economy. The pandemic has added salt to these wounds.

Experts say that welfare schemes and subsidies rolled out by Asian governments can be converted into UBI. According to them, these sops currently end up in the hands of the relatively rich or are pilfered by middlemen.

They put forth UBI as an effective poverty-eradication tool in Asia, where about 60 percent of inhabitants do not fall under any form of social protection.

Since the pandemic has further drained their resources, the economic toll is expected to be astronomically high in post-pandemic Asia.

According to the World Bank, over 20 million people in Asia have been pushed into poverty and 100 million dislocated due to the Covid-19 pandemic.

The Human Development Index measuring income, health and education has reached an all-time low in Asia since records began in 1990.

According to the United Nations Development Programme, 80 percent of students in Asia do not have access to education as a result of the pandemic.

While mooting UBI for Asia as a panacea, a few tips can be obtained from Spain, which has launched the largest test yet of UBI.

On June 15 last year, hit by the coronavirus crisis and its economic fallout, the EU member state offered monthly payments of up to €1,015 (US$1,145) to Spain's 850,000 poorest households. It will cost the state exchequer at least €3 billion per year.

Before the Spanish rollout, the biggest trial was done in Kenya, which allocated 2,250 Kenyan shillings ($21) to 2,100 adults.

Many nations have experimented with UBI. But the schemes were limited to a few thousands of people. Scotland and Canada are mulling the possibility of UBI to tide over hardships caused by the pandemic.

It is not that UBI is a novel concept in Asia. UBI has already gained momentum in South Korea and has become a major poll plank among politicians.

Championed first by Gyeonggi province governor and presidential hopeful Lee Jae-Myung, UBI was quickly hijacked by presidential contenders from all sides.

India tried UBI in small projects with encouraging results in the central state of Madhya Pradesh. A limited version of UBI came up in India when main opposition leader Rahul Gandhi pledged to create "the world's largest minimum income scheme" if his party triumphed in elections.

Gandhi promised the poorest 20 percent of households 72,000 rupees ($1,050) per year as part of the proposed Nyay (justice) scheme.

The post-pandemic world calls for a new social contract to rebalance deep economic inequalities and build a sustainable future across societies.

For the upcoming fourth industrial revolution to take root in the largest continent, which is home to 60 percent of humanity, those rendered jobless by disrupting technologies would have to be given an economic chance to get on with their lives.

With the rollout of UBI worldwide, "human capitalism" that is inclusive of the poor will take birth in the world."

It just confirms how much of a socialist Bergoglio truly is. It seems to further the agenda of one world government.

Quote from: Melkor on March 04, 2021, 09:47:47 AM
It just confirms how much of a socialist Bergoglio truly is. It seems to further the agenda of one world government.

He's a Freemasonic Satanic Communist at heart, not a "socialist".

You are an Indian.  It is hard for you to understand the problems this would cause in a western economy where those who would receive that income would become a class of idle drones shoring up the Marxist Globalist policies of the elite.  People don't bite the hand that feeds them.

Very quickly UBI would turn into a demand that people limited their families for "the good of the planet".

The demands would keep coming.  UBI is the last door to slavery.

It is the worst idea ever.

We have a generous social welfare system in Ireland, you could literally raise a large family on SW.  What happens then is there is no incentive to improve yourself or your situation.  Kills any sort of self worth (addiction problems follow this type of life) and raises generations of entitled brats who ring their local authority reps to replace a light bulb or a doorbell.

UBI is coming and we have a precursor called the PUP which is the covid payment of €350 pw (in the cities this is poor money but outside of that, you could live with basics).  The one consolation of UBI is I'll will laugh my arse off at those teachers and public servants who embraced the covid scam coz they were getting paid anyway and loved the time at home with their garden projects and house renovations...they're in for a massive shock.
When are teachers going to realise they're jobs are for the chop, one teacher can teach 200 students online instead of 30 in person...thats one cull I am looking forward to.

Quote from: diaduit on March 05, 2021, 03:06:51 AM
It is the worst idea ever.

We have a generous social welfare system in Ireland, you could literally raise a large family on SW.  What happens then is there is no incentive to improve yourself or your situation.  Kills any sort of self worth (addiction problems follow this type of life) and raises generations of entitled brats who ring their local authority reps to replace a light bulb or a doorbell.

UBI is coming and we have a precursor called the PUP which is the covid payment of €350 pw (in the cities this is poor money but outside of that, you could live with basics).  The one consolation of UBI is I'll will laugh my arse off at those teachers and public servants who embraced the covid scam coz they were getting paid anyway and loved the time at home with their garden projects and house renovations...they're in for a massive shock.
When are teachers going to realise they're jobs are for the chop, one teacher can teach 200 students online instead of 30 in person...thats one cull I am looking forward to.

I could almost see one teacher per grade to teach the entire country vis a vis youtube.  Then you could have your administrators for local tracking.  Say one per 500 E-Learners. 

Quote from: MaximGun on March 05, 2021, 12:13:52 AM
You are an Indian.  It is hard for you to understand the problems this would cause in a western economy where those who would receive that income would become a class of idle drones shoring up the Marxist Globalist policies of the elite.  People don't bite the hand that feeds them.

Very quickly UBI would turn into a demand that people limited their families for "the good of the planet".

The demands would keep coming.  UBI is the last door to slavery.

UBI would amount to an instant prison system in which the receiver of funds participates in his voluntary slavery.  These people don't even make for friendly shoppers as they can't enjoy that experience because they didn't earn the money through their own labor. 

In other words, we might soon see a country with 50% working and 50% on the dole.  It won't be pretty. 

I predict there will be a huge raise in taxes to just pay for the scamdemic and the resulting unemployment.

I am going to consider and carefully observe for a black market side hustle that earns money in cash so I don't have to pay tax on that income.

Any dollars you earn in 2023 could well be taxed at 50%.  Usually that creates the right conditions for a black market.

Not much point in earning 100,000 if 50,000 is taken out of your paycheck.  Better to earn 40,000 on the side and claim poverty and get what is going for free .

You will have an easier life, more free time and you will be in control.  I am damned if I am going to support a globalist government with my taxes.

Quote from: diaduit on March 05, 2021, 03:06:51 AM

We have a generous social welfare system in Ireland, you could literally raise a large family on SW.  What happens then is there is no incentive to improve yourself or your situation.  Kills any sort of self worth (addiction problems follow this type of life) and raises generations of entitled brats who ring their local authority reps to replace a light bulb or a doorbell.

I have seen that near to me in social housing.  Older generation 60 or more years old rent but improve their rented homes on their own dime and initiative.  Younger generation 40 years old and less (commonly single mother living with new boyfriend) don't even remove leaves from their gutter, it overflows down the wall, then they complain that they have damp and mould in the house.  Repairmen eventually show up.

It is a sickening attitude that you see in socialist and former socialist countries.

Yes, I am an Indian. So my suggestions - which btw are for Q-UBI not full UBI - would necessarily be tailored to the Indian context. I understand some Western conservative writers are concerned about it, and I understand their concerns, but I think it could work in India. Many other Indians feel the same. India has made some progress in recent decades in fighting poverty, but there is still much work to do. PM Candidate Gandhi also suggested a limited UBI, for the poorest 20% of the population. An already existing GST Tax for about 3 months would completely cover that. It's also likely some currently existing programs, such as MSP for farmers, could be done away with if Q-UBI was implemented.

I worked in Bank of New York for a while, so I have some familiarity with the West, but of course not as much as a Westerner would have. It may not work in western countries, I don't know. If there already are sufficient welfare programs that ensure everyone has enough to eat and an opportunity to rise, that may be enough. After the needlessly extended lockdowns, the US government gave out 1000s of dollars of stimulus checks to everyone. If things go back slightly to normal, a Q-UBI would work like that, but only to a targeted few.

Indians are a very different breed to Europeans.

When they arrive in the UK they typically work very hard in the first and second generation.  My doctor is an Indian, the shopkeepers are often Indian.  The best students at schools tend to have a higher number of Indians.

I cannot think of a single Hindu or Indian Christian I know who is not reasonably successful in the UK and none are on welfare.

Muslims very often DO go on the dole and exploit the welfare system.  Non Muslim Indians almost never.

Here is the problem with welfare and UBI.  Let's give an example of a traditionalist Catholic I know in the UK.  Once you are on it, between the free dental, free healthcare, school meals free for your children, rental or mortgage interest paid off for you, welfare money, child tax credits, help getting white goods like washing machines, emergency loans you can end up on an income of $40,000 per year equivalent to earning the money.

But you have 40 hours per week or more to then work, fix up your home, make your garden nice and do all of the jobs that a person earning $60,000 a year does not have time for.  They take their car for a $500 service and oil change, you service your own car for $95.  So the $405 the spent (they had to earn $600) for is dead time.

Thus you create a income chasm where it is not worth you taking any job that pays less than $30,000 more than you get on benefits, because you lose those benefits the moment you get a full time job.

You have 40 hours to jump on all of the best deals from Freecycle and furnish you house for nothing other than the petrol money to pick things up.  People give away, toasters, juice extractor machines, beds, mattress, wardrobes, curtains, paint, lawnmowers, just about everything you could need.  Spend your morning picking these up from middle class housewives for free and you can see what you don't want on ebay.

If a person was motivated to work 6 hours per day at their side hustle and fixing their house and landscaping their garden then could invite their neighbour making $90k per year over and he would wonder why his house and garden were not so tidy and why his furniture looked more worn out.

Obviously a lot of welfare recipients are lazy gits and they don't make the effort, so their homes and gardens look like a pigsty.  But those who do have a cushy life.

Those 40 hours a week (excluding the commute) you can use for leisure, fitness, cooking healthy food, gardening, side-hustle for cash really are worth an unmeasurable value.

And that is why UBI would not work.


But if they bring it in, probably the smartest thing to do if you are not in the top 5% of wage earners is go on it and side-hustle as much as you are able.  Earn what you can in cash and services in kind and milk it for as long as possible.  You are really kind of dumb if you slave in a job that a computer (or an Indian/Chinaman) will take over in 10 years, just to pay the taxes to fund the UBI.

You should never fund your own enslavement.

The problem with universal basic income according to the Great Reset is that UBI is just the start of the process.  The next stage is to eliminate all ownership of property.  This would clearly make it a communist system.

By itself I don't think UBI is that bad if everyone, rich and poor get it.  It would eliminate welfare and the social contract.  As a percentage of the gross domestic product of the country the UBI would increase or decrease depending on the gross domestic product.  As long as people would still be able to earn a living on top of the UBI and own homes and property there would be an incentive for everyone to work for additional income and to increase the gross domestic product of the country.  This may even eliminate people working under the table, seeing income on the books would increase the gross domestic product of the country thus increasing the UBI; although there may or may not have to be a way put in place to curtail people working under the table.  Social Credit doesn't call this UBI, it calls it a Social Dividend because it is derived from a percentage of the country's gross domestic product.  Social Credit is the application of the Social Doctrine of the Church.

https://www.michaeljournal.org/articles/social-credit/category/in-this-age-of-plenty

Without means of production you will never be able to get asset rich. Means of production will be near impossible to acquire because of economic barrier to entry.  Socialism always fails everywhere it is tried.

Not really sure where you're going to find the money to give everyone free income forever.

The concept is that those owning the giant robot factories like Amazon and Google will fund all of this.

Like the movie Soyent Green.

Quote from: MaximGun on March 05, 2021, 11:19:37 PM
The concept is that those owning the giant robot factories like Amazon and Google will fund all of this.

Like the movie Soyent Green.

Well with 500,000,000 people left on the planet, its more affordable for them and it will be regurgitated from the taxes imposed on the peoples purchases, utilities, carbon taxes etc.

Thanks, everyone, for the responses. MG, I'm happy to know Indians are constructively contributing to the UK economy. We still have some British families living in India as well, all nice people, some of whom who come to our Church are Anglo-Indians, as we call them. Britishers who remained in India after 1947, and some who married into the Indian population. Many Indians today appreciate some of the good things the British did while in India. Of course, not all of it was pleasant, but some of it was good.

So, going back to Mike's suggestion, yes, I'm all for tying the "Social/National Dividend" to GDP Growth, as was proposed by Clifford Douglas, the British-Canadian pioneer of Social Credit: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_credit ["Not to be confused with Social Credit System", which is a form of Communistic government over-reach.] See also: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/C._H._Douglas#Social_credit

Social Credit according to Major Douglas comes under capitalism itself. It does not propose oppressive taxation nor any form of State Control over the affairs and lives of good citizens; quite the contrary, in fact, it gives everyone the potential to be assured at least of a bare minimum basic income such as would suffice to eat and live. To explain it briefly, it proposes that, when the economy grows by a certain percentage, new money should be created equivalent to that percentage. This new money doesn't belong to banks, nor should it be created, as is often done currently, as "debt" owed by the government, and thus the people, to the banks. Rather, this new money, justified by the growth of the economy, should be distributed directly to the people, as a just dividend from the collective national growth.

Social Credit makes sense and could alleviate real problems in the long run. Canada came close to implementing it once, I believe - Mike may know about that - but other than that it hasn't been generally tried. Douglas' proposal has been called "distributism" by some. Far from dis-incentivising work, it would create an additional incentive to work harder for the nation's progress - so that the collective dividend would be larger next time. Unfortunately, the idea is not widely known yet.

So let's take the US Economy as an example. GDP is approximately $20 Trillion, let's take it as such for ease of calculation. Let's say the Economy grows 5% in a year. i.e. to $21 Trillion. Now, according to Social Credit, this $1 Trillion in growth belongs to the people. There are $1 Trillion of new value or fresh wealth created in goods and services - that's what GDP means - so why shouldn't there be precisely $1 Trillion, no more or no less, in units of currency? If adhered to strictly, this would also limit inflation, which of course in the correct economy is affected by other factors as well, including the interest rate set by banks.

So this $1 Trillion would be distributed to the people. There are about 350 million people in the US, so that comes to about $3000 per person per year. Or, if we take it as around 85 million households, around $12,000 per household. Not a large amount, but not a pittance either. Supposing a family earns, let's say, $48,000, 80% of their income would come from their work, and 20% from the BI. If they were to be earning $88,000, it would be 12% from the BI, and the rest from their ordinary income. And so on.

Now, what is expected is that, if it were implemented like this, then as time goes on, the BI's contribution to total income would increase. This is especially so if automation is successful etc, and the total output of the economy remains same or increases, but fewer jobs are available for humans. This is just theory at this point, but it may become practical soon, and was foreseen by Douglas.

All that aside, and coming back to India for illustration, Gandhi's proposal - of Rs 6000 a month for the poorest 20%, 250 million people - would be completely covered by about 3 months of an already existing GST Tax. So it's certainly doable imho. Other social programs could also be wrapped up if it is implemented. It would end extreme poverty in India, as no one's income would be below that Rs 6000 at least. Rs 6000 is barely $100 p.m., but it is sufficient to live a life with basic necessities in India.

According to this site, "Some 220 million Indians sustained on an expenditure level of less than Rs 32 / day [$0.5] — the poverty line for rural India — going by the last headcount of the poor in India in 2013." https://www.downtoearth.org.in/news/economy/how-india-remains-poor-it-will-take-7-generations-for-india-s-poor-to-reach-mean-income--68898 Gandhi's proposal would be a godsend and a huge win for these 220 million. Gandhi is running for election in 2024. Please pray for him. It would be good for India if he wins.

The Social Credit Party was a populist political party in Canada.  They were stronger provincially than they were federally.  The Alberta Social Credit Party won the 1935 provincial election and went on to win nine subsequent elections, and governed until 1971.  The Socreds did well in British Columbia for a while, and held seats in Quebec, Ontario, Saskatchewan and Manitoba.  I believe they had to be stronger federally to attempt the Social Dividend idea.  Clifford Hugh Douglas' full financial system has not been applied anywhere to date.

From the Michael Journal (https://www.michaeljournal.org/articles/social-credit/category/in-this-age-of-plenty) "It [the Social Dividend] would be issued by the Central Bank, the property of the people."  This shows that the central bank of the country needs to be publically own, or be a crown corporation for Clifford Douglas' system.  This system could happen in Canada because Canada's central bank, the Bank of Canada is a federal Crown corporation and its shares are owned by the Canadian government.  Canada should not be in debt.  Stupid Canadian politicians borrowed from commercial banks rather than the Bank of Canada to put the country in debt.

There has been talk in Canada about a universal basic income too.  But knowing Trudeau and hearing him use Klaus Schwab's World Economic Forum catch phrases like 'Build Back Bitter' (like China Joe) I'm afraid the moron is not talking about a Social Credit Social Dividend, but rather a World Economic Forum communist universal basic income.

Xavier do you realize that article linked in the last paragraph of your last post is referring to the World Economic Forum's latest report?  I also noticed that Rahul Gandhi is the President of the Indian National Congress, a center to center-left political party that is affiliated with the Socialist International, which is a worldwide organization of political parties which seek to establish democratic socialism.  Something tells me that Mr. Gandhi is not talking about Social Credit Social Dividend either.  That said I think India needs to share it's wealth a little better.  A few years ago I was looking at the list of the world's wealthiest people and that year India had more people on the top of the list than any other country.  I don't know if it still does but when you consider that India has some of the poorest people in the world I think things can be done better over there.

One can also see this in light of the global economy. That is,

71 pct of human beings are able to spend less than $10 daily.

2,153 people (all billionaires) have more wealth than 4.6 billion people.

Earlier reports indicate that if the few richest people in the world give up a fraction of their wealth, then the amount might be enough to provide initial capital, such as housing and education, to decrease poverty considerably on a global scale.

How small is that number of people? 2,153 out of almost 7.5 billion people.

How insignificant is that fraction to be given up? It's recovered in two years or so because of stock appreciation, etc. What is that wealth? Believe it or not, literally numbers in hard drives.

What are the implications of that decrease in poverty? Major decreases in conflict, illness, etc. And the punch line is that because the components needed for basic needs come from large corporations owned by the rich, then the money they donate returns to them through higher sales. That might be one consequence of a UBI that's often not mentioned.

What's the catch? What's talked about are numbers in hard drives. The underlying material resources and energy that will be exploited through those numbers remains the same because of gravity and a physically limited biosphere.

Yes, definitely Mike. I wish the best for Canada also. Nice country. I supported Andrew Scheer for PM. Some kind of Social Dividend would be good for everyone. We just have to decide the best way of doing it. It would be ideal if fractional reserve banking was ended first.

But since that is not likely to happen very soon, we have to work with what we have: "According to Oxfam, India's top 1% of the population now holds 73% of the wealth, while 670 million citizens, comprising the country's poorest half, saw their wealth rise by just 1%.[25]" There are some very rich people in India, as you mentioned, some of the richest in the world, but 250 million very poor people.

It's those 250 million people who currently live on barely nothing who would be GREATLY benefited by Rahul Gandhi's plan. No family would have less than 6000 Rs per month, about $100. A small amount to be sure, but it would make a significant difference for them.

India's Constitution is officially socialist. But India is mostly a capitalist country, with free enterprise for all, and open competition in the private sector. "Social Dividend" probably come under "distributist" thinking. However we classify it, it is an idea whose time has come.

Quote from: Xavier on March 08, 2021, 02:58:14 AM
Yes, definitely Mike. I wish the best for Canada also. Nice country. I supported Andrew Scheer for PM. Some kind of Social Dividend would be good for everyone. We just have to decide the best way of doing it. It would be ideal if fractional reserve banking was ended first.

But since that is not likely to happen very soon, we have to work with what we have: "According to Oxfam, India's top 1% of the population now holds 73% of the wealth, while 670 million citizens, comprising the country's poorest half, saw their wealth rise by just 1%.[25]" There are some very rich people in India, as you mentioned, some of the richest in the world, but 250 million very poor people.

It's those 250 million people who currently live on barely nothing who would be GREATLY benefited by Rahul Gandhi's plan. No family would have less than 6000 Rs per month, about $100. A small amount to be sure, but it would make a significant difference for them.

India's Constitution is officially socialist. But India is mostly a capitalist country, with free enterprise for all, and open competition in the private sector. "Social Dividend" probably come under "distributist" thinking. However we classify it, it is an idea whose time has come.

Canada is a beautiful country and I love her, but what is happening over here with our fagboy PM and his agenda is almost too much for me. There's talk of abolishing all debt and getting rid of private property. They already banned 'assault style' weapons and are talking about banning handguns next. 

I'd give up some of my wealth on the cast iron promise guarantee that I would be left the hell alone after that.

But they never do leave you alone.  Always meddling.

Quote from: Melkor on March 08, 2021, 09:55:57 AM

Quote from: Xavier on March 08, 2021, 02:58:14 AM
Yes, definitely Mike. I wish the best for Canada also. Nice country. I supported Andrew Scheer for PM. Some kind of Social Dividend would be good for everyone. We just have to decide the best way of doing it. It would be ideal if fractional reserve banking was ended first.

But since that is not likely to happen very soon, we have to work with what we have: "According to Oxfam, India's top 1% of the population now holds 73% of the wealth, while 670 million citizens, comprising the country's poorest half, saw their wealth rise by just 1%.[25]" There are some very rich people in India, as you mentioned, some of the richest in the world, but 250 million very poor people.

It's those 250 million people who currently live on barely nothing who would be GREATLY benefited by Rahul Gandhi's plan. No family would have less than 6000 Rs per month, about $100. A small amount to be sure, but it would make a significant difference for them.

India's Constitution is officially socialist. But India is mostly a capitalist country, with free enterprise for all, and open competition in the private sector. "Social Dividend" probably come under "distributist" thinking. However we classify it, it is an idea whose time has come.

Canada is a beautiful country and I love her, but what is happening over here with our fagboy PM and his agenda is almost too much for me. There's talk of abolishing all debt and getting rid of private property. They already banned 'assault style' weapons and are talking about banning handguns next.

Yeah, that's the major concern.  What comes next after a universal basic income.

If these ultra wealthy creatures like Klaus Schwab, George Soros, Bill Gates, Charles Mountbatten-Windsor and the like truly want to help the poor then let them give a portion of their wealth.  Period.  Their Great Reset idea is just a scheme to capture the entire wealth of the world for their own benefit.

I believe it's been demonstrated in history that merely "guaranteeing" everyone a basic income destroys the incentive to labor beyond the minimum.  Low levels of motivation rob human beings of the full development of their talents and also steal from them their sense of accomplishment in providing for themselves and their families.  It really is opposed to Catholic social teaching.  Please someone show me where in papal encyclicals or other official documents, the Church, pre-Francis, has a history of teaching that GBI accords with Church doctrine as derived from Scripture.

Jesus Christ did not preach socialism. He preached generosity to the indigent, and he preached against greed within all economic classes. He did not preach that a guaranteed income gives people dignity, but that being sons and daughters of God gives all people dignity, and that the poor, conscious of how destitute they are, have greater opportunities to become close to God than your average rich person, since poverty tends to encourage humility.

Neither did he preach keeping the poor down. He commanded His followers to themselves assist the poor. The poor, in the ancient Mediterranean, were those so disabled or otherwise impaired by circumstances, that there was no opportunity for relief outside of material charity. They were the equivalent of today's chronically homeless, without resources. The poor did not mean simply people who earned low wages or were not from the merchant class. We would describe them as permanently needy, despite whatever efforts they had made to earn a secure living.

The Pope's definition of poverty is quite different.  It's what the Dems describe as poor, which is really lower-middle-class and would have been the equivalent of merely average in Jesus's day.

UBI in the USA would make us a certified socialist country overnight.

If governments wanted they could stop corrupt practices in business.  This would prevent billionaires from getting ever richer.

Amazon with enough financial backing from investors can sell diapers at a loss until it bleeds its competition white and they are acquired or go bankrupt.

This is the essence of the problem.  The largest player has a huge advantage if they wish to use it.  These businesses tend to be started, grown and run by power hungry greedy psychopaths.  Who else would run them? Most normal people want a life.

The only solution appears to be to steal back the billions from billionaires every 100 years, through violent revolution, and start the cycle over with new psychopaths.

Quote from: Melkor on March 08, 2021, 09:55:57 AM
Canada is a beautiful country and I love her, but what is happening over here with our fagboy PM and his agenda is almost too much for me. There's talk of abolishing all debt and getting rid of private property. They already banned 'assault style' weapons and are talking about banning handguns next.

Have you actually heard Trudeau or anyone in his government talk about abolishing all debt and getting rid of private property?  Or are you just repeating the talk about the Great Reset? 

I heard the Trudeau government mention a universal basic income, that there's no serious talk about it at this time.  But I haven't heard the Trudeau government talk about abolishing all debt and getting rid of private property.  Have you?

Quote from: mikemac on March 10, 2021, 10:26:22 AM

Quote from: Melkor on March 08, 2021, 09:55:57 AM
Canada is a beautiful country and I love her, but what is happening over here with our fagboy PM and his agenda is almost too much for me. There's talk of abolishing all debt and getting rid of private property. They already banned 'assault style' weapons and are talking about banning handguns next.

Have you actually heard Trudeau or anyone in his government talk about abolishing all debt and getting rid of private property?  Or are you just repeating the talk about the Great Reset? 

I heard the Trudeau government mention a universal basic income, that there's no serious talk about it at this time.  But I haven't heard the Trudeau government talk about abolishing all debt and getting rid of private property.  Have you?

Perhaps I am just repeating the talk of the Great Reset, although I am no conspiracy freak. So I guess the answer is no.

Quote from: Melkor on March 10, 2021, 11:18:35 AM

Quote from: mikemac on March 10, 2021, 10:26:22 AM

Quote from: Melkor on March 08, 2021, 09:55:57 AM
Canada is a beautiful country and I love her, but what is happening over here with our fagboy PM and his agenda is almost too much for me. There's talk of abolishing all debt and getting rid of private property. They already banned 'assault style' weapons and are talking about banning handguns next.

Have you actually heard Trudeau or anyone in his government talk about abolishing all debt and getting rid of private property?  Or are you just repeating the talk about the Great Reset? 

I heard the Trudeau government mention a universal basic income, that there's no serious talk about it at this time.  But I haven't heard the Trudeau government talk about abolishing all debt and getting rid of private property.  Have you?

Perhaps I am just repeating the talk of the Great Reset, although I am no conspiracy freak. So I guess the answer is no.

Thanks.  That's what I was hoping you'd say.

Quote from: Miriam_M on March 10, 2021, 01:26:37 AM
I believe it's been demonstrated in history that merely "guaranteeing" everyone a basic income destroys the incentive to labor beyond the minimum.  Low levels of motivation rob human beings of the full development of their talents and also steal from them their sense of accomplishment in providing for themselves and their families.  It really is opposed to Catholic social teaching.  Please someone show me where in papal encyclicals or other official documents, the Church, pre-Francis, has a history of teaching that GBI accords with Church doctrine as derived from Scripture.

The "incentive to labor beyond the minimum" in this case isn't necessarily "providing for themselves and their families" but greed. That is, if a worker earns enough to provide for himself and his family, then he does not have to go beyond the minimum, except to meet extraordinary costs. Otherwise, his reason is to maximize earnings for this other than provisions, which is also similar to maximization of profits for capitalists. The rationale for that is greed.

Quote

Jesus Christ did not preach socialism. He preached generosity to the indigent, and he preached against greed within all economic classes. He did not preach that a guaranteed income gives people dignity, but that being sons and daughters of God gives all people dignity, and that the poor, conscious of how destitute they are, have greater opportunities to become close to God than your average rich person, since poverty tends to encourage humility.

He also said that it's easier for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God. As for generosity, he also went beyond that by telling a rich man that in order to attain eternal life he must sell all of his possessions, give all of his money to the poor, and follow Him.

Quote

Neither did he preach keeping the poor down. He commanded His followers to themselves assist the poor. The poor, in the ancient Mediterranean, were those so disabled or otherwise impaired by circumstances, that there was no opportunity for relief outside of material charity. They were the equivalent of today's chronically homeless, without resources. The poor did not mean simply people who earned low wages or were not from the merchant class. We would describe them as permanently needy, despite whatever efforts they had made to earn a secure living.

Not only that, He even dined with tax collectors, harlots, and other members of society who were considered undesirable by most.

Quote

The Pope's definition of poverty is quite different.  It's what the Dems describe as poor, which is really lower-middle-class and would have been the equivalent of merely average in Jesus's day.

UBI in the USA would make us a certified socialist country overnight.

My understanding is that the Pope is referring to the world population and not just to the U.S. There is actually a way to determine poverty across the board, and even connect it to your first point, which refers to providing for oneself and one's family.

According to the UN, poverty refers to the lack of what's needed for one to attain optimal health, and optimal health refers to the ability to live as long as one naturally can and with the least amount of suffering.

Scientifically, one needs the ff. in order to achieve that:

1. food that ensures a balanced diet or what's required by doctors or one's doctors;

2. the means to produce, store, and prepare that food safely, e.g., mechanized agriculture, storage facilities, appliances, potable water, etc., all following safety standards;

3. a shelter that follows safety standards and that safely houses people, that food, and more, which means shelters with proper lighting, inspected electrical systems, sanitation systems, etc;

4. medical personnel, medicine, equipment, and facilities to deal with life-threatening diseases, pain, etc. (what's reasonable is likely what you think is good enough for you, which is very likely what's available in many developed economies);

5. clothing to protect from the elements and from disease;

6. the infrastructure, utilities, and material resources to support all of that: road networks with cement, gravel, etc., electricity with electric grids, plastics, steel, and more, mining and manufacturing plants, gasoline, diesel, coal, and others, and so on, all needed to extract resources from the ground, manufacture machines and goods plus produce from mechanized agriculture, delivery systems across extensive supply chains, and more.

Nitpickers can argue that one should not forget this or that, but the point remains.

The question is how much would a family of five (oneself and one's family) need daily in order to pay for all of that. The usual number given is $10 daily, which is related to the World Bank poverty threshold of $2 daily per person ($2 daily per person times five family members equals $10 daily). Meanwhile, cost of living and purchasing power parity indicators reveal that costs are fairly the same across countries, with some poorer ones experiencing ironically higher costs due to lack of demand (e.g., with high poverty rates come low purchasing and even borrowing power, which means higher prices and even interest rates due to lack of sales). That's why in contrast to the $10 min. daily threshold for a family of five, some argue that the living wage is $20. That means a family of five needs to earn at least $20 daily in order to attain the basic needs mentioned above plus hopefully set aside additional in the event of extraordinary costs, such as loss of employment or the house burning down.

And it won't surprise me if forum members even argue that $20 a day for a family won't be enough.

Wat are the conditions faced worldwide? According to the WB and others, something like 71 pct of people worldwide earn less than $10 daily. That's likely the world poverty rate.

Meanwhile, if other indicators are right, around 2,000 people have more wealth than 4.6 billion, and that only a fraction from the former will be enough to at least partly counter poverty. That fraction to be sacrificed, which is made up of numbers in hard drives and gained through stock appreciation and similar, is so small that it is easily recovered in two years or so, as seen in increases (some of them, terrific) in the wealth of billionaires reported at the end of each year.

With that, a UBI might not even be needed.

I'm not arguing $20 a day, but barely $90 per month to be precise. Less than $3 per day, for the 20% poorest in my particular country. We shouldn't rely too much on the UN imo and a one-size-fits-all solution is bad. Let countries be free to do what they deem best for their people.

I appreciate some of the concerns from the others, about whether the UN or other globalist organizations will use this to impose socialist dictatorships that rob us of our freedom and private property etc, but I think there's no danger of that in Gandhi's proposal. Gandhi is very freedom-loving and a humanitarian and I have no doubts that he will never impose any kind of freedom-restricting dictatorship in India.

Each country should decide on its own. Since the US was brought up, according to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_social_welfare_spending , the US is very high on the list already in Total Net Social Spending, and per capita social spending. India doesn't even appear in the list of the first 35 odd countries. It even may be the case that the US should reduce some social spending, I am not sure about that. But I and many other Indians feel India could do more. Some may wish to implement full-UBI and propose possible ways to do it. I think Q-UBI, for 20% people only, would work well in India.

6000 Rs, less than 90$ a month, is still a very small amount, objectively speaking. I don't believe it would take away the incentive to work, but it may help villagers etc better fund their children's education, and increase their potential to work. So there are different challenges here than in the west. The Church does great work to help the poor here in India, but cannot take care of everything. I think there is a Christian case for a basic income to be given to the poorest sections of society, so no one falls below a bare minimum line. With Rs. 6,000, you could buy very little. Farmers etc would still need to sell provisions to make a living. But instead of having almost nothing post-expenses, if they earn, say, Rs. 10000 on their own, they may have more than almost nothing for themselves and their children. Rent itself would be Rs. 10,000 in most places and maybe Rs 5,000 in a few. So they have very little left over in the end.

There has to be growth in the economy no doubt, and Church and private charitable initiatives, to end poverty, but a Q-UBI could help too.

Quote from: diaduit on March 06, 2021, 07:52:20 AM

Quote from: MaximGun on March 05, 2021, 11:19:37 PM
The concept is that those owning the giant robot factories like Amazon and Google will fund all of this.

Like the movie Soyent Green.

Well with 500,000,000 people left on the planet, its more affordable for them and it will be regurgitated from the taxes imposed on the peoples purchases, utilities, carbon taxes etc.

With 500,000,000 people left I would have thought their revenues and profits would be lower.  They would sell half of what they are selling now.  So I am not sure how affordable it is.  Unless they target only the relatively unproductive people in the third world.

Personally I think globalism will fail to ever leave the runway.  Look at the problems the freemasons are having just trying to run Europe.  They want to do that on a global scale?  It will be a complete mess.

Quote from: Xavier on March 11, 2021, 04:15:19 AM
I'm not arguing $20 a day, but barely $90 per month to be precise. Less than $3 per day, for the 20% poorest in my particular country. We shouldn't rely too much on the UN imo and a one-size-fits-all solution is bad. Let countries be free to do what they deem best for their people.

I appreciate some of the concerns from the others, about whether the UN or other globalist organizations will use this to impose socialist dictatorships that rob us of our freedom and private property etc, but I think there's no danger of that in Gandhi's proposal. Gandhi is very freedom-loving and a humanitarian and I have no doubts that he will never impose any kind of freedom-restricting dictatorship in India.

Each country should decide on its own. Since the US was brought up, according to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_social_welfare_spending , the US is very high on the list already in Total Net Social Spending, and per capita social spending. India doesn't even appear in the list of the first 35 odd countries. It even may be the case that the US should reduce some social spending, I am not sure about that. But I and many other Indians feel India could do more. Some may wish to implement full-UBI and propose possible ways to do it. I think Q-UBI, for 20% people only, would work well in India.

6000 Rs, less than 90$ a month, is still a very small amount, objectively speaking. I don't believe it would take away the incentive to work, but it may help villagers etc better fund their children's education, and increase their potential to work. So there are different challenges here than in the west. The Church does great work to help the poor here in India, but cannot take care of everything. I think there is a Christian case for a basic income to be given to the poorest sections of society, so no one falls below a bare minimum line. With Rs. 6,000, you could buy very little. Farmers etc would still need to sell provisions to make a living. But instead of having almost nothing post-expenses, if they earn, say, Rs. 10000 on their own, they may have more than almost nothing for themselves and their children. Rent itself would be Rs. 10,000 in most places and maybe Rs 5,000 in a few. So they have very little left over in the end.

There has to be growth in the economy no doubt, and Church and private charitable initiatives, to end poverty, but a Q-UBI could help too.

The $20 daily figure isn't a UBI proposal but the amount needed to maintain daily costs for basic needs.

The basic needs mentioned by the UN isn't a "globalist" imposition but what's needed in order to maintain optimal health.

Quote from: MaximGun on March 11, 2021, 04:21:31 AM

With 500,000,000 people left I would have thought their revenues and profits would be lower.  They would sell half of what they are selling now.  So I am not sure how affordable it is.  Unless they target only the relatively unproductive people in the third world.

Personally I think globalism will fail to ever leave the runway.  Look at the problems the freemasons are having just trying to run Europe.  They want to do that on a global scale?  It will be a complete mess.

Most don't know this, but the very presence of this forum is dependent on globalization. Even the parts found in devices used to access it involve businesses in multiple countries spanning extensive supply chains.

UBI with no labor, investment, and goods to back up the money. It will only end up in tears like with Germany back in the early 1920's.

Quote from: King Wenceslas on March 12, 2021, 07:04:59 PM
UBI with no labor, investment, and goods to back up the money. It will only end up in tears like with Germany back in the early 1920's.

Yes, but with U.B.I., folks will have income in which to make donations to the Church before Frank has to sell some Michelangelos to cover the debt they are running up at his hotel in Vatican City. 

Vatican low on reserves to cover deficit, seeking donations (https://apnews.com/article/vatican-low-on-reserves-seeking-donations-90586d6c79d75d229c207dcddcfe2d9b)

I can only speak for my own country. I want both growth in the economy, and a corresponding distribution of some of the increased fruits of production, to the poorest sections of society. I'm more than willing, as are many millions of my fellow countrymen, Indians, to bear a little increased monetary burden, if necessary, in order to do so. Each nation and its people will have to make informed collective decisions. There is both a Christian and humanitarian case to be made for Q-UBI, in my opinion, so we should consider the religious and moral aspect of it too. Finally, we should remember many currently existing welfare schemes could be ended if Q-UBI was implemented.

"The Union Budget for 2020 will be presented soon. Instituting a social dividend of at least Rs 1000 per month for the 40% poorest families in our country would be a huge step forward toward almost eliminating poverty. GST collection for January alone would almost pay for it [40% of 25 Crore Households in India*1000=10,000 Crore p.m=1.2 lakh Crore per annum. GST collection was 1.15 lakh Crore. It is certainly do-able] ...

A reminder of how high the stakes are, if we really care for others, and love our people: "If India wants to become a $5-trillion economy, it requires a single-minded focus. Too much negative energy is being generated on issues like Kashmir, the CAA-NRC. We are at a 5 per cent growth rate and we have to climb up to 8 per cent if we want to achieve the goal. And these are not just numbers: a 1 per cent increase in economic growth brings 15 lakh jobs, with each job creating three indirect jobs, which each in turn supports five people. So, 1 per cent growth brings happiness to three crore people." https://www.indiancatholicmatters.org/a-catholic-perspective-how-india-can-make-it-to-a-gdp-10-trillion-economy-by-2030/ 3 Crore is the Indian way of saying 30 million people.

Capitalist systems may be driven by greed (i.e., maximization of profits) but ultimately rely on more consumers who just happen to be laborers in the same system, which means the opposite of maximization of profits due to higher labor costs. The latter may be mitigated by automation, but because robots aren't consumers then the same systems will still be relying on laborers to consume. And if automation leads to increased production, then consumers will have to be relied upon to buy even more, as more profits can't be realized unless there are more sales, and more sales if only there's more consumption. But that means higher labor costs, and if that can't be raised further, more borrowing (e.g., layaway plans and loans to buy houses, cars, appliances, etc.), which banks (also part of the system) need anyway because they can only earn more by lending more.

All these were clearly seen a century ago when people like Ford, who will the help of Taylor and others, developed assembly lines and other innovations. They led to higher production but sales were not high enough because laborers were still paid poorly and thus couldn't afford to buy what they manufactured. So laborers were paid more, given job security, and banks lent them more because of higher pay and security, and that led to higher sales. In short, capitalists increased labor costs, and later automation, in order to increase sales further.

That's why consumer spending started, and then spread to other countries.

With that, a UBI or similar should have a similar effect, as the money received from such will be spent on goods and services sold by the same businesses. And the sacrifices will be small because the gap between rich and poor has been growing for the past 200 years, to the point that the 2,000 richest people in the world have more wealth than over 4.6 billion. And the wealth of the richest can grow up by 30 pct per annum simply through financial speculation.

What's the catch? All of the wealth talked about so far involves literally numbers in hard drives. The actual wealth of the world, i.e., material resources and energy, are still dependent on a biosphere that's physical and limited. The system described above requires not only continuous but increasing growth.

So, what happens when, as U.S. professional wrestlers used to put it, an unstoppable force meets an immovable object?

Quote from: ralfy on March 13, 2021, 09:26:38 PM
Capitalist systems may be driven by greed (i.e., maximization of profits) but ultimately rely on more consumers who just happen to be laborers in the same system, which means the opposite of maximization of profits due to higher labor costs. The latter may be mitigated by automation, but because robots aren't consumers then the same systems will still be relying on laborers to consume. And if automation leads to increased production, then consumers will have to be relied upon to buy even more, as more profits can't be realized unless there are more sales, and more sales if only there's more consumption. But that means higher labor costs, and if that can't be raised further, more borrowing (e.g., layaway plans and loans to buy houses, cars, appliances, etc.), which banks (also part of the system) need anyway because they can only earn more by lending more.

All these were clearly seen a century ago when people like Ford, who will the help of Taylor and others, developed assembly lines and other innovations. They led to higher production but sales were not high enough because laborers were still paid poorly and thus couldn't afford to buy what they manufactured. So laborers were paid more, given job security, and banks lent them more because of higher pay and security, and that led to higher sales. In short, capitalists increased labor costs, and later automation, in order to increase sales further.

That's why consumer spending started, and then spread to other countries.

With that, a UBI or similar should have a similar effect, as the money received from such will be spent on goods and services sold by the same businesses. And the sacrifices will be small because the gap between rich and poor has been growing for the past 200 years, to the point that the 2,000 richest people in the world have more wealth than over 4.6 billion. And the wealth of the richest can grow up by 30 pct per annum simply through financial speculation.

What's the catch? All of the wealth talked about so far involves literally numbers in hard drives. The actual wealth of the world, i.e., material resources and energy, are still dependent on a biosphere that's physical and limited. The system described above requires not only continuous but increasing growth.

So, what happens when, as U.S. professional wrestlers used to put it, an unstoppable force meets an immovable object?

To put it in an even simpler way consider food and how it is sold and portions at restaurants and fast food joints.  When I started my job at a McDonalds in 1977 a small, what they term regular size, coke was 12 oz.  Then the medium became a regularl while I was still there I believe.  Within 5 years of my start date a regular Coke was 22 oz. maybe even 24 oz. Same thing happened with fries and sandwiches and their numbered meals. 

Why?  Because they have to feed people more in order to keep up with growth.  Even a great business that generates tons of cash like McDonalds can't stay afloat without giving people the means to become obese. 

The whole setup is sick. 

With regards to India, it will have massive problems as long as it is trapped in the fatalist demon worship of hindoo-ism.  No redistribution scheme can help it.  Conversion to the One True Church of Christ is the only thing that will save it.  The fruits will be honesty and charity.  Same can be said of countries trapped in the devil worship of the moslem.

On MMT and The People's Dividend, if you follow their reasoning, then during a down market like COVID, the government has to dip in people's bank accounts and remove money.  If it doesn't, then MMT is arbitrary.  Furthermore you have to explain to me why some drug addict fat sow of 4 kids from 6 dads should be getting my money.

On UBI, IF you canceled all welfare and medicaid, and fired all the government workers caught up in that scheme, and everyone got the same amount, I would prefer that over the present system.  However, it is still marxist, based on "to each according to his need".  You also have to establish how government has the authority to point guns at people, rob them of their things, and give to others.  Redistribution is theft.  But, per intellectual honesty, I agree that UBI for everyone is preferable to welfare schemes.  Only problem is that the producers will ask for higher wages and you'll be back to where we are.

The solution is based on the Iron Law: In order to consume, you must first produce; which comes from ontology.

If we look at two improvements that Trump did, deregulation and a tariff on China, we see the result.  Unemployment dropped to effectively zero, and the group that saw the largest percent increase in wages was the bottom 20%.  If you want to bring the economy more in balance with regards to wealth distribution (and it is severely out of balance), then you would do the following:
1.  A flat import duty.
2.  Slash Federal regulations and leave it up to the States.
3.  Eliminate corporate taxes and pay for it via increased tariffs.
4.  Balance the U.S. Federal budget.
5.  Eliminate the Fed and replace it with the Greenback which grows at a statutory permanent rate of 1%.
6.  Outlaw usury.  You will find that most billionaires made their money from usury.  Note stock buy backs paid for by corporate debt is usury.
7.  Eliminate Social Security and replace it with a Chilean plan whereby people become owners of capital.
8.  Reform the labor unions so that labor unions become honest and more wide spread.
9.  Eliminate all taxes except a sales tax and the import duty.
10.  Eliminate all Federal welfare schemes and leave relief of the poor to the Church.

This is all an interesting discussion, but the US and Europe will explode in my lifetime.  I predicted a $30 Trillion Fed debt by 2024 on my podcast with the assumption Trump would win.  We will be at $30 Trillion this year.  I predicted gasoline will be back to $4/gal during Biden's first term.  It is fast approaching $3/gal already.  There is no fixing what is coming.  Leftism always fails because it is a violation of the Iron Law.

Globalism failed because of wage disparities.  The slaving country wins out.  I went over this on my podcast on free trade.  Wealth is created by capital formation and capital accumulation.  An excavator operator is worth more when he uses an excavator to dig a trench vs. using a pick and shovel.

So with Globalism, the slaving country (China) accumulates all of the capital and the consumer country accumulates debt held by China.  China then purchases the most choice real estate in the consumer country (see California and Vancouver), the choice farm land, and whatever remaining factories in the consumer country.  The slaving country also uses its wealth to buy out the government in the consumer country.  Over time, the citizens of the consuming country become slave workers for China.

Quote from: Innocent Smith on March 14, 2021, 10:42:36 AM

To put it in an even simpler way consider food and how it is sold and portions at restaurants and fast food joints.  When I started my job at a McDonalds in 1977 a small, what they term regular size, coke was 12 oz.  Then the medium became a regularl while I was still there I believe.  Within 5 years of my start date a regular Coke was 22 oz. maybe even 24 oz. Same thing happened with fries and sandwiches and their numbered meals. 

Why?  Because they have to feed people more in order to keep up with growth.  Even a great business that generates tons of cash like McDonalds can't stay afloat without giving people the means to become obese. 

The whole setup is sick.

Check out the book McDonaldization of Society. It explains that fast food joints make a lot of money, and much more than people realize. That's because they create the illusion of value while giving the opposite.

For example, french fries have a markup of around 200 pct, and soda around 800 pct. That's because all sorts of fillers and other things are added, and sodas made available with the carbonated water separate from the other ingredients. Purchased in bulk, they can be had for a fraction of the price.

The same goes for many other businesses, from jeans and sports shoes to tours to even sports entertainment like basketball: the actual value of the good or service purchased is many times higher than its actual worth.

For example, it's not surprising if sports shoes are marked up by around 400 pct. That is, around a fourth of the price goes to making the pair (with a few cents given to laborers), the second fourth to research (to make shoes with "new" and "improved" features so that buyers will buy another pair even if they don't need to do so), and half to marketing. The same can be seen in many other things, from Hollywood movies to smart phones.

Quote from: james03 on March 14, 2021, 06:04:07 PM
Globalism failed because of wage disparities.  The slaving country wins out.  I went over this on my podcast on free trade.  Wealth is created by capital formation and capital accumulation.  An excavator operator is worth more when he uses an excavator to dig a trench vs. using a pick and shovel.

So with Globalism, the slaving country (China) accumulates all of the capital and the consumer country accumulates debt held by China.  China then purchases the most choice real estate in the consumer country (see California and Vancouver), the choice farm land, and whatever remaining factories in the consumer country.  The slaving country also uses its wealth to buy out the government in the consumer country.  Over time, the citizens of the consuming country become slave workers for China.

It's more like the U.S. being the manufacturing center of the world (before that, many were working in farms, and then moved to cities to work in factories), and as its wages go up its businesses start outsourcing to other countries, starting with Mexico and others to China, and more from factories now move to service industries. And what happened to the U.S. will also happen to other countries, which is why according to one source 60 pct of manufacturing in China might now involve assembly of components outsourced to other countries, and more Chinese workers now want to work in service industries than in factories (before that, they came from farms). In time, those countries will experience the same.

Quote from: JamesOn UBI, IF you canceled all welfare and medicaid, and fired all the government workers caught up in that scheme, and everyone got the same amount, I would prefer that over the present system.  However, it is still marxist, based on "to each according to his need".  You also have to establish how government has the authority to point guns at people, rob them of their things, and give to others.  Redistribution is theft.  But, per intellectual honesty, I agree that UBI for everyone is preferable to welfare schemes.  Only problem is that the producers will ask for higher wages and you'll be back to where we are.

Right, James. I appreciate you have an economic background and so understand these matters in depth. I believe while discussing last time, we agreed a UBI linked to economic growth would be better than the current system. So for e.g. in the US, the economy is around $ 20T. If the economy grows 5%, to $21T, then there is around $1T to distribute per year, if new money is printed to exactly that amount. I do not see this as any one person's money. Douglas, who invented Social Credit, called it as a "collective dividend" belonging to all society. It is the net increase in society's total wealth. There have been studies done showing 1% of the people in the world own more than 50% of all the wealth. That's not sustainable imo, and a Social Dividend, would help the poor rise faster as the economy grows richer. Both are important, growth in production, and equitable distribution of the value created by the increase of production.

So in India, economy is around $2.8T https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economy_of_India If we have 10% growth, that would be $280B in a year. Since our population is nearly 1.4B People, that comes to a small amount of about $200 per person per year. For a household or family of 4 or 5 people, it may be about $1000 a year, or Rs. 70,000. Not a very large amount, but will help the poor rise faster imo. I would be in favor of starting with a Q-UBI for the bottom 20% of society, then maybe moving it to 40% after 5 years, then 60% and so on.

I'm not sure what will work in the West. I personally think the US has had too much debt, and a very high GDP-Debt Ration. India's external debt is around $560 Billion, a fraction of GDP. The US Economy is very large, the largest in the world, but so is the US debt, as you know. My view is implementing Social Credit - and abolishing usurious fractional reserve banking, as we both agree - may help the US clear its debt over time. It will be difficult of course.

The world itself has too much debt, compared to world GDP. one of the unfortunate consequences of both rampant usury, and too much dependence on loans, in both private and public life: "By the end of 2020, economists expect global debt to reach $277 trillion, or 365% of world GDP." https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2020/12/global-debt-gdp-covid19/ Again, it would be good to write off some debt.

But that's another problem for another time. A Q-UBI such as Rahul Gandhi has proposed for India is workable in 3 to 5 years itself, within the current system. I pray and hope he wins. He has great support here. Gandhi is an economic populist, kind of like Trump in that regard. Let's see how it goes. Many Churches and charities do great work for the poor here in India. India has also come far in a short while, thanks to the IT boom and other factors. "India has been the biggest contributor to poverty reduction between 2008 and 2011, with around 140 million or so lifted out of absolute poverty.[111]"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poverty_in_India#Reduction_in_poverty

I'm very pro-capitalist generally. I've seen the good effects of capitalism and economic growth in alleviating poverty. But I believe in "compassionate capitalism", capitalism with a human heart, and economic growth backed by real measures for everyone to share in that growth.

And of course, Evangelism is even more important. There may already be as many as 100 million Christians in India. Official reports, like Open Doors, gives it as around 70 million, but everyone here knows its much more than that. I and many others here are working to win millions more to Christ and His Church in the coming decade. Many Indians are open to Christ, and some already worship Him as God. It's the part of Our Lord Jesus being the Only God that's hard for many to accept, but many are coming to accept that as well.

God Bless.

Increasing debt coupled with increasing energy and material resource use per capita in a world that has physical limits and more wanting to make more money through financial speculation.

Quote from: ralfy on March 15, 2021, 01:16:37 AM

Check out the book McDonaldization of Society. It explains that fast food joints make a lot of money, and much more than people realize. That's because they create the illusion of value while giving the opposite.

For example, french fries have a markup of around 200 pct, and soda around 800 pct. That's because all sorts of fillers and other things are added, and sodas made available with the carbonated water separate from the other ingredients. Purchased in bulk, they can be had for a fraction of the price.

Actually they don't make much money at all. At $1 million dollar investment for the franchise McDonald's yields around $80-120k/yr in profit. The real profit is far more insidious.

The real money is in the real estate and using tax techniques of advanced depreciation, and renting the property to themselves. That's why small businesses will go broke with higher minimum wage and the need for profit while the franchise model will survive. Instead of relying on profit as a means of growth, they use tax deductions, credits and rental income that small people don't know or couldn't afford to use.

Take Starbucks as an example. They don't care if they net a profit from a store, they just want to write off the property and rent the property from themselves as a corporation at the highest rate possible. Instead of leveraging a cup of coffee, they are leveraging cap rates on real estate and income from rent which is far cheaper to pay taxes on than income. Coffee is just their means to do so. It's brilliant.

It also makes it impossible for small mom and pop operations to ever compete with that model. Real people would want to make money to live, corporations just want enough to leverage more real estate.

Quote from: bigbadtrad on March 16, 2021, 09:26:14 AM

Actually they don't make much money at all. At $1 million dollar investment for the franchise McDonald's yields around $80-120k/yr in profit. The real profit is far more insidious.

The real money is in the real estate and using tax techniques of advanced depreciation, and renting the property to themselves. That's why small businesses will go broke with higher minimum wage and the need for profit while the franchise model will survive. Instead of relying on profit as a means of growth, they use tax deductions, credits and rental income that small people don't know or couldn't afford to use.

Take Starbucks as an example. They don't care if they net a profit from a store, they just want to write off the property and rent the property from themselves as a corporation at the highest rate possible. Instead of leveraging a cup of coffee, they are leveraging cap rates on real estate and income from rent which is far cheaper to pay taxes on than income. Coffee is just their means to do so. It's brilliant.

It also makes it impossible for small mom and pop operations to ever compete with that model. Real people would want to make money to live, corporations just want enough to leverage more real estate.

Don't expect high returns in countries facing late capitalism, like the U.S., where such fast food joints are common occurrences. For most of the world, though, where there is an an emerging middle class eager to spend, the opposite has been taking place.

QuoteIncreasing debt coupled with increasing energy and material resource use per capita in a world that has physical limits and more wanting to make more money through financial speculation.

In the real world the increasing debt is seen in the late stage socialism/fascism of the USA.  The debt that is killing us is government debt, which is now forcing the Fed to print more so that all the socialism and fascism can remain financed, regardless of the fact that real estate, rent, tuition, medical, food, cars, and energy are exploding higher in cost.  This is the typical last stage before leftist governments blow up. 

By the way, we aren't anywhere near the limits on energy.  Exxon just brought the Guyana elephant field online, Venezuela has barely tapped their oil reserves, same with eastern Colombia, and there are a trillion barrels locked in shales in the US Rockies.  Then we get to coal.  The limit to energy is leftist politics.

QuoteRight, James. I appreciate you have an economic background and so understand these matters in depth. I believe while discussing last time, we agreed a UBI linked to economic growth would be better than the current system.

Intellectual honesty on my part, replacing the current distributist banking guild where 13 people decide the interest rate and money supply for a $20 Trillion economy every 6 weeks with a fixed formula system like MMT is an improvement.  Replacing welfare and medicaid with just a check to everyone via basic income is an improvement.  Both still suck.

As I said, if you follow MMT theory governments should have taken money away from unemployed people during COVID as GDP shrank.  We all know that is insane, therefore MMT is insane.  And if you open the door for special rules, first it shows your theory is garbage, and second it opens the doors for other exceptions, like increasing money supply more than the formula during a downturn, etc...  Before long the bankers are back in power with their loop holes.

So I propose this.  Grow the money supply at a fixed rate, say 2%.  Take that money and deposit it into a Chilean type retirement account for all citizens, even the fat sow single mother of 4 kids with 6 baby daddies.  The fixed rate growth prevents any funny business, and putting the money away where people can't touch it will minimize the political pressure to print more money.

My preference is to use the money to lower the tax rate for the Federal Sales Tax (which, combined with a flat tariff and some use taxes like gasoline tax, would replace all other taxes.)  People would benefit via lower taxes and our money would be sound.

Money is a tool for exchanging value for value.  It must retain value and be readily transferable.  It should not be used to give people free goodies.

Here is a thought experiment.  Suppose you have two perfectly identical economies, A & B, with 1 difference.  In "B" you decide to plant a huge produce garden and tend it after work.  You sell produce from it and after 1 year you have $1,000 for your work.  Economy B is now larger than "A" by $1,000 of values, i.e. Economy B has additional fresh produce for people to enjoy.  You typical customer paid $10 out of what he would have saved, and you add $1000 to your savings.

Now why, according to MMT theory, should there be a "people's dividend"?   Value for value was traded.  Your hard work resulted in giving the people the value of some additional fresh produce, and the people gave you the value of their time used to procure some money.  It is in balance.  Injecting a "people's dividend" is double accounting and is wrong.

And since the theory is based on error, it won't work.  You'll get inflation.

QuoteDon't expect high returns in countries facing late capitalism, like the U.S.,

Don't expect high returns in socialist/fascist economies like the US, where anyone who is successful will be looted by the government and hassled by insecure, inadequate, impotent sociopath government officials who can only feel important by destroying.

The one exception are the companies plugged into the fascist system.  They can get all sorts of subsidies, waivers, and loop holes and will make huge returns, as they don't need to compete and can dip their beak into the government loot.  This is the US.  Look at the $80 BILLION of taxpayer money given to the wind turbine companies in Texas.  The owners of those companies are flying around in private jets, even though they are in business is to destroy value.

If you can't beat them, join them.  Remember I was educated in Venezuela and know how to play the game.  I've already started checking out and will check out fully in a year or two.  I will dip my beak into the socialism and fascism and spend my days riding motorcycles and jug fishing for catfish.

But I need the horse of Animal Farm to roll up his sleeves and just try harder.  And I have plenty of people like ralfy to do that.  He will work his job and dutifully pay his taxes..... to me.  I'll get money to build my solar array, and I'll get my money to super insulate the redoubt. I also have a friend who will be teaching me all about Ag subsidies. 

So instead of freezing my butt off in arctic conditions so that people have gasoline and natural gas, I and many other producers will be sipping cold beers and fishing.  And when enough producers quit, as seen in every socialist situation, and the energy system falters, I'll be fine with my solar array just watching the show.  The leftists, who believe in utopia, won't be prepared.  Don't get it twisted, I welcome socialism and will thoroughly enjoy myself.

Leftists have a fatal premise to their theories that they really need to reexamine.  And that is the theory that no matter how much they abuse and enslave the producers, the producers will find work arounds and keep producing.  What happens when the producers become the world's greatest looters?

Quote from: James03Intellectual honesty on my part, replacing the current distributist banking guild where 13 people decide the interest rate and money supply for a $20 Trillion economy every 6 weeks with a fixed formula system like MMT is an improvement.  Replacing welfare and medicaid with just a check to everyone via basic income is an improvement.

Improvement, yes, I agree. That it's bad, I disagree.

Yes, in an exceptional case where GDP decreases, theory says the money supply will have to be correspondingly contracted. There are one or two ways that can be actually done. First, since it is very rare that such an event as annual GDP net decline will happen, like once in a lifetime, it can simply be put off to the next year. Suppose the GDP instead of increasing from 100 to 110 declines first to 95 in one year and then moves to 105. So forget the payment in year 1, and pay the smaller amount, the increase of 5, in year 2. That would solve it. There are some others, but this should suffice.

Let's take your thought experiment on how it would normally work.

QuoteHere is a thought experiment.  Suppose you have two perfectly identical economies, A & B, with 1 difference.  In "B" you decide to plant a huge produce garden and tend it after work.  You sell produce from it and after 1 year you have $1,000 for your work.  Economy B is now larger than "A" by $1,000 of values, i.e. Economy B has additional fresh produce for people to enjoy.  You typical customer paid $10 out of what he would have saved, and you add $1000 to your savings.

Yes, so let's suppose Economy A and Economy B have $500 in value and currency units before this garden. Let's suppose there are 10 people in both economies; as you said, they are perfectly identical. Now, when Economy B has grown to $1500 in terms of goods or produce, what can be the basis for justifying why the money supply should remain at $500? This theory, MMT, would say, bring up the money supply to meet the value of goods. In other words, the new $1000 created should be distributed as $100 each to everyone.

So consider the entire economy as a giant corporation. The government is not in debt. The basic accounting equation would reduce to Assets=Equity. What is the asset increase here? The $1000 in new produce. How should the monetary side of the economy be altered? By increasing $1000 in currency units, to bring it to a perfect balance. This balance would avoid inflation in the economy.

MMT treats the economy as a giant corporation and every stakeholder in the economy, as how ordinary shareholders are treated. When the value of the corporation increases, each person's holding also correspondingly increases. So everyone gets a dividend. And also everyone is motivated to grow the economy more, so that everyone can share in the collective growth. That creates a virtuous cycle.

Also, if there was only $500 in the economy so far, how will anyone buy your produce? It would be impossible to buy the produce, because there would be too many goods, with too little money to buy them. Going by theory, if there was too much money in the economy to begin with, say $2000, then $500 should be withdrawn. Value of Goods=Value of Money Supply is the equation here.

MMT is a theory in progress and so not beyond criticism. But I think it could work and would be better than what we have now.

God Bless.

In answer to the OP question,  is UBI a good thing and does it work? The answer is no and no. It is Marxism dressed up in new terms.