Universal Basic Income - From the left to the right

[unbillievable]

I'm not trolling. And I'm far from being convinced anything like what I've outlined would work in practice. I've just done a fair amount of work on the subject and it's always good for discussion, it's not meant in bad faith or to offend. Just talk.

 

To answer the price of goods/services point, there are a lot of different opinions on how to implement a functioning economy. I imagine it would work similar to how it does now: different prices for different goods that individuals can purchase as they see fit. The range of value in similar goods would probably be condensed to accommodate the purchasing public's equivalence of disposable income, but the overall quality would theoretically remain at mean or even possibly increase, given efficiencies in consolidating production and less waste via incentivizing frugality.

 

To sum up:

Your entire economic model is based on the assumption that capitalism provides a good foundation for production, but wastes it's resources on unnecessary luxuries, that needs to be re-allocated by an arbitrary government assigning jobs based on common community needs, through personalty and intelligence based job placement, and hoping to accomplish this peacefully by socially re-engineering individual motivation.

 

• No more luxuries. Bread and Water is equal. Baconator, and the Cronut are unnecessary wastes.
• Supply is determined by the state. We obviously need more plows than cell-phones.
• Demand is determined by the state. You have to buy volts, not mustangs. It's better for everyone.
• Prices are determined by the state. Profit must be eliminated.
• Re-education camps for all.
• Mandatory skills and intelligence testing to determine your entire life path.
• State supervision to make sure you're working as hard as you can. Pretending to do less is an attack against your fellow man.
• Anyone using more than they need is robbing the community. The state determines what you need.
• Innovation and efficiency will occur by state mandate. It will happen because they said so. Kim Jong wants a hoverboard. make it happen, or else!

 

So how do you decide who's going to be in charge, and do we call him "dear leader"?

Edited June 10, 2017 by unbillievable

[unbillievable]

And just out of curiosity who decides who does what jobs? Pretty sure you've said in your system that everyone has to produce to get that wage. Someone has to make that decision AND enforce it. (If you didn't state that, apologies, have you confused w/ someone else. But would still like an answer to the question.)

 

I'm only guessing, but he did state that people are tested for their best job. So we must create a quiz that can determine who will become what... including dear leader. I think I saw this movie.

 

[Taro T]

I'm only guessing, but he did state that people are tested for their best job. So we must create a quiz that can determine who will become what... including dear leader. I think I saw this movie.

 

Nice.

 

[Chef Jim]

 

To sum up:

Your entire economic model is based on the assumption that capitalism provides a good foundation for production, but wastes it's resources on unnecessary luxuries, that needs to be re-allocated by an arbitrary government assigning jobs based on common community needs, through personalty and intelligence based job placement, and hoping to accomplish this peacefully by socially re-engineering individual motivation.

 

• No more luxuries. Bread and Water is equal. Baconator, and the Cronut are unnecessary wastes.
• Supply is determined by the state. We obviously need more plows than cell-phones.
• Demand is determined by the state. You have to buy volts, not mustangs. It's better for everyone.
• Prices are determined by the state. Profit must be eliminated.
• Re-education camps for all.
• Mandatory skills and intelligence testing to determine your entire life path.
• State supervision to make sure you're working as hard as you can. Pretending to do less is an attack against your fellow man.
• Anyone using more than they need is robbing the community. The state determines what you need.
• Innovation and efficiency will occur by state mandate. It will happen because they said so. Kim Jong wants a hoverboard. make it happen, or else!

So how do you decide who's going to be in charge, and do we call him "dear leader"?

Good post. And there is one good thing about his plan. We won't need that !@#$ing wall!

 

Oh wait, we will. To keep us in.

[IDBillzFan]

To answer the price of goods/services point, there are a lot of different opinions on how to implement a functioning economy. I imagine it would work similar to how it does now: different prices for different goods that individuals can purchase as they see fit. The range of value in similar goods would probably be condensed to accommodate the purchasing public's equivalence of disposable income, but the overall quality would theoretically remain at mean or even possibly increase, given efficiencies in consolidating production and less waste via incentivizing frugality.

 

And now we're back to personal accountability. You ensure every person gets paid the same, regardless of career, and now you're giving them complete decision making over how to spend that money.

 

So assume Person A is a dentist and Person B is a street sweeper. Person A pays their mortgage, takes care of their family and lives within their means. Person B, earning the same as Person A and with the same number of mouths to feed, decides to forego feeding his kids or taking them to school to buy a big screen TV, Xbox, and three cars . Now Person B's children are hungry and their house is about to be foreclosed on.

 

Who takes care of Person B and his/her family? Who feeds them? Houses them? Educates them?

 

I appreciate the fact that you say it's not a perfect plan, and that you don't have all the answers, and that you think it's actually a good discussion.

 

But it's actually a ridiculous discussion, and I can only assume it's designed to give you cover for a larger ideology you're not bold enough to openly discuss.

Edited June 10, 2017 by LABillzFan

[unbillievable]

 

And now we're back to personal accountability. You ensure every person gets paid the same, regardless of career, and now you're giving them complete decision making over how to spend that money.

 

So assume Person A is a dentist and Person B is a street sweeper. Person A pays their mortgage, takes care of their family and lives within their means. Person B, earning the same as Person A and with the same number of mouths to feed, decides to forego feeding his kids or taking them to school to buy a big screen TV, Xbox, and three cars . Now Person B's children are hungry and their house is about to be foreclosed on.

 

Who takes care of Person B and his/her family? Who feeds them? Houses them? Educates them?

 

I appreciate the fact that you say it's not a perfect plan, and that you don't have all the answers, and that you think it's actually a good discussion.

 

But it's actually a ridiculous discussion, and I can only assume it's designed to give you cover for a larger ideology you're not bold enough to openly discuss.

The answer to your question is that Person B would not exist at all because we have programmed him to feed his kids and not want an Xbox.

 

GB808's proposals start with a great end result. What he wants is a perfect world. We all do. A perfect outcome revolving around perfect people with noble intentions working towards selflessly improving the community. Where you run into problems is how we get there;

 

Problem: greed is evil (makes sense)

Solution: remove profit as a motivation (noble)

Method: re-education camps (WTF?)

 

It's textbook leftist reasoning; presenting an ideal world that everyone can agree on, then hits you with an idiotic methodology to force the result. There is a reason why Utopian civilizations are only found in sci-fi/fantasy books and are creepy as hell; we know that something is wrong with the way people are behaving.

 

GoBills808.

 

As previously stated, the incentive to produce would be the individual's interest in providing for country and society, rather than the profit motive.

 

Well put. So in theory, if your financial needs were met independent of your particular occupation, your incentive to produce would suffer no significant drop-off and could in fact be improved by bettering your security within society.

 

The above statement in particular is disturbing: "...bettering your security within the society".

Your desire for personal gain is to be replaced with acceptance by the society; A subjective mob evaluation of your worth over concrete financial reward. How loyal are you to the political party? Did you thank dear leader today?

Edited June 10, 2017 by unbillievable

[Pine Barrens Mafia]

[/dev/null]

http://www.breitbart.com/national-security/2017/06/12/exclusive-inside-venezuela-socialist-haven-brink-total-collapse/

[Chef Jim]

http://www.breitbart.com/national-security/2017/06/12/exclusive-inside-venezuela-socialist-haven-brink-total-collapse/

 

Breitbart..............

 

Everything's fine there. Stop posting propaganda.