Universal basic income trial in the US

[BugI02]

Do Libertarians not countenance the concept of moral hazard? How many cases do you personally know where parents gave their children everything without them having to work, and that that acted in a horribly corrosive way on their character? Why do you think that is?

When I was younger I used to think that the cases I knew about were weak or flawed in some way. Increased exposure to the wider world has caused me to doubt that conclusion, due to the near ubiquitous nature of such cases (at least those I know about personally). Based on my own experience, I think UBI will be a more corrupting and damaging influence on most of its recipients then the social safety hammock has been, and as with others , I believe the UBI will not even end the other assistance programs. Those programs will be pushed from above by administrators loath to give up their power and position or potential votes, and from below by those who want more, more, more because others are successful and 'can afford it'

 

[Libertarian01]

Do Libertarians not countenance the concept of moral hazard? How many cases do you personally know where parents gave their children everything without them having to work, and that that acted in a horribly corrosive way on their character? Why do you think that is?

When I was younger I used to think that the cases I knew about were weak or flawed in some way. Increased exposure to the wider world has caused me to doubt that conclusion, due to the near ubiquitous nature of such cases (at least those I know about personally). Based on my own experience, I think UBI will be a more corrupting and damaging influence on most of its recipients then the social safety hammock has been, and as with others , I believe the UBI will not even end the other assistance programs. Those programs will be pushed from above by administrators loath to give up their power and position or potential votes, and from below by those who want more, more, more because others are successful and 'can afford it'

This argument against UBI attacks from an entirely different angle. Note that the support I give is based upon the premise that all other programs would be eliminated. It is purely pragmatic on the efficiency and cost side.

You are correct. I do not address the moral hazard issue, except where I stated my opposition to almost ALL welfare programs. As our ability to individually underwrite whom we wish to help and by how much has become almost limitless with internet programs such as Gofundme and others, such as Prosper.com the need for government programs has decreased substantially. Unfortunately they will not go away.

However, as with every variable, there would be both positive and negative consequences with a UBI being introduced beyond the efficiency of which I seek. There would be thousands of families helped and aided that would be able to grow beyond their means with this system that cannot do so now. Would the positives outweigh the negatives, or would the negatives outweigh the positives? All we can do now is speculate as we have no data to study or compare. This study will help to add such information to our knowledge.

Regards,

Doug

 

[Lex Concord]

I think you and I have agreed to disagree on that point before.

The principles that Marx described, over the long term, seem to be playing out the way he predicted. Not necessarily the cataclysmic clashes, but the movement of societies.

The Bolsheviks' attempts (then the Maoists and others') to impose what he described is the sticking point.

On the "what to do about it" stuff, we should all go back and look at the New Deal. Figure out what started us down this path and we might have a good starting point for how to fix it.

Fear itself.

 

[Tombs]

I love this plan.

It won't work of course. SOCIALISM can't work without coercion.

Let me guess, you probably think giving people 40 acres and a mule is socialism?

 

[GodFearinGunTotin]

Let me guess, you probably think giving people 40 acres and a mule is socialism?

Let me guess. Since that specific thing is not in the text book definition of socialism, it's not?

 

[T.Lex]

Marx was mostly full of ****.

Hey j!

Quick followup that I happened across:
https://qz.com/1269525/capitalism-is-unfolding-exactly-as-karl-marx-predicted/

 

[jamil]

Hey j!

Quick followup that I happened across:
https://qz.com/1269525/capitalism-is-unfolding-exactly-as-karl-marx-predicted/

That's not the particular **** he was full of.

 

[T.Lex]

That's not the particular **** he was full of.

Yeah, I know, but I thought this other **** was interesting nonetheless.

 

[Tombs]

Let me guess. Since that specific thing is not in the text book definition of socialism, it's not?

Well, it worked didn't it? Wouldn't that mean it's not socialism in your eyes?

 

[jamil]

Yeah, I know, but I thought this other **** was interesting nonetheless.

I should probably specify a little more about the GLOCK he wasn't full of. I'm talking about automation. It's not all that hard to predict that as humans advance, you know, because that's what happens under capitalism, they'll figure out ways to make human labor more obsolete. I'd say that it seems clear at this point that automation will drive the threshold for minimum employable competence higher, which means more people will fall below the minimum competence for the jobs of the future. That's a problem which will drive some of the things Marx complained about, like income inequality, and so on. I'm not saying we can't solve that problem within capitalism. But it's not solved it yet. Maybe the next "big thing" will be augmenting people to level out competency. Wouldn't THAT be a hoot?

The article you posted did include some of the GLOCK that Marx is full of, though. Like his labor/value theory. It's flat out wrong.

 

[T.Lex]

I should probably specify a little more about the GLOCK he wasn't full of. I'm talking about automation. It's not all that hard to predict that as humans advance, you know, because that's what happens under capitalism, they'll figure out ways to make human labor more obsolete. I'd say that it seems clear at this point that automation will drive the threshold for minimum employable competence higher, which means more people will fall below the minimum competence for the jobs of the future. That's a problem which will drive some of the things Marx complained about, like income inequality, and so on. I'm not saying we can't solve that problem within capitalism. But it's not solved it yet. Maybe the next "big thing" will be augmenting people to level out competency. Wouldn't THAT be a hoot?

The article you posted did include some of the GLOCK that Marx is full of, though. Like his labor/value theory. It's flat out wrong.

I think the SIG that he - for now - got wrong IMHO was the organization part. When mixed with a relative democracy/lack of strict caste system, capitalism allows for upward mobility. As long as that is available, people have hope and can change their station in life. Or die trying. They can at least improve their children's lives in the process.

He underestimated the power of the middle class to expand, and thereby deny the necessary numbers and organization to the lower class.

Now, I think the trajectory may still lead there. But where he got the SIG right, IMHO, is that it can't be forced by governments. It'll either happen organically or it won't happen at all.

 

[jamil]

Well, it worked didn't it? Wouldn't that mean it's not socialism in your eyes?

What? 40 acres and a mule?

That wasn't socialism. The 400K acres was land conquered in war and given to former slaves to farm. And as far as the recipients, it was supposed to be a *loan* of land that the new occupants would repay, and then own clear. The mules weren't to be given away for free, either. Sherman ordered that the military may *loan* mules to the black farmers.

And no. It didn't work. Read the history of that. Lincoln approved Sherman's order, but Johnson overturned it when he got in office. The land was returned to the original owners.

 

[jamil]

I think the SIG that he - for now - got wrong IMHO was the organization part. When mixed with a relative democracy/lack of strict caste system, capitalism allows for upward mobility. As long as that is available, people have hope and can change their station in life. Or die trying. They can at least improve their children's lives in the process.

He underestimated the power of the middle class to expand, and thereby deny the necessary numbers and organization to the lower class.

Now, I think the trajectory may still lead there. But where he got the SIG right, IMHO, is that it can't be forced by governments. It'll either happen organically or it won't happen at all.

SIG. Well. Okay. Given the GLOCK that's been happening with the new Military side-arm, one could call that SIG a load of GLOCK.

I think some miraculously horrible GLOCK would have to happen to get to that point. The revolution I see brewing most isn't about economics as much as it is cultural. Ironcially, it will be partly one side demanding a Marxist economy, not for organic reasons, but because their professors filled their heads full of the same GLOCK Marx was full of.

 

[T.Lex]

SIG. Well. Okay. Given the GLOCK that's been happening with the new Military side-arm, one could call that SIG a load of GLOCK.

I think some miraculously horrible GLOCK would have to happen to get to that point. The revolution I see brewing most isn't about economics as much as it is cultural. Ironcially, it will be partly one side demanding a Marxist economy, not for organic reasons, but because their professors filled their heads full of the same GLOCK Marx was full of.

At the risk of some serious 1980s retro SIG, Gordon Gecko is more rightier on this point. Greed works. That's what generally sucks dry the organization efforts of the masses. The leadership likes their private charters and limos.

It will take many iterations of those upheavals for human nature to organize.

Or, a situation like the Founding Fathers. Hear me out on this. They set aside personal goals and opportunity for royalty for the greater good. That remains amazing to me.

It could happen again, with a different direction.

Maybe.

 

[jamil]

At the risk of some serious 1980s retro SIG, Gordon Gecko is more rightier on this point. Greed works. That's what generally sucks dry the organization efforts of the masses. The leadership likes their private charters and limos.

It will take many iterations of those upheavals for human nature to organize.

Or, a situation like the Founding Fathers. Hear me out on this. They set aside personal goals and opportunity for royalty for the greater good. That remains amazing to me.

It could happen again, with a different direction.

Maybe.

I don't think human nature is inherently greedy. At the base, assuming you're talking evolution, is a desire to survive. If you're religious, well, it depends on your religion. I think the belief that the basic human nature is desire to survive is very defensible empirically. And we're family oriented, so that desire to survive is extended to the family. And we're tribal, so that desire to survive extends to the tribe. I think that explains a lot of things. It doesn't necessarily explain greed. It explains self-interest though. Greed looks to me like self-interest gone awry.

I just don't see a Gordon Gecko style greed leading to an eventual revolution. If something doesn't happen to squelch the SJW nonsense, that's where the revolution will be.

 

[BugI02]

Greed is a proper subset of Gluttony

 

[T.Lex]

I don't think human nature is inherently greedy. At the base, assuming you're talking evolution, is a desire to survive. If you're religious, well, it depends on your religion. I think the belief that the basic human nature is desire to survive is very defensible empirically. And we're family oriented, so that desire to survive is extended to the family. And we're tribal, so that desire to survive extends to the tribe. I think that explains a lot of things. It doesn't necessarily explain greed. It explains self-interest though. Greed looks to me like self-interest gone awry.

I just don't see a Gordon Gecko style greed leading to an eventual revolution. If something doesn't happen to squelch the SJW nonsense, that's where the revolution will be.

I wasn't clear.

That kind of greed means there won't ever be enough organization - or selflessness - to bring about Marx's version of communism/socialism.

As you say, it will take a significant change in human priorities for that to happen.