|
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please.In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. |
United States43676 Posts
On October 15 2016 02:53 Nyxisto wrote:Show nested quote +On October 15 2016 02:52 IgnE wrote:On October 15 2016 02:49 Nyxisto wrote:
Biggest problem with UBI is that handing cash out isn't very effective, better to put the money into some compulsory fund that people can spend, like foodstamps but for more stuff. and this is based on what? studies of cash transfers in war torn african countries? The idea is that if we transfer cash from one guy to another we ought to have at least some say in how it's spend, like with most other shared social resources. I don't mind paying for someone's healthcare or food, I do mind paying for homeopathy and booze. If we socialise something we have a collective interest that it's being used responsibly.
This doesn't work. They'll just barter it for cash and end up creating a black market. One of the bigger advantages of UBI is the efficiency from just giving people enough for their basic needs and letting them decide how to allocate it. The waste created by alcoholics spending it on booze is estimated to be less than the cost of trying to stop them doing that. Ultimately most people are the best judges of their own immediate needs.
|
On October 15 2016 02:53 Nyxisto wrote:Show nested quote +On October 15 2016 02:52 IgnE wrote:On October 15 2016 02:49 Nyxisto wrote:
Biggest problem with UBI is that handing cash out isn't very effective, better to put the money into some compulsory fund that people can spend, like foodstamps but for more stuff. and this is based on what? studies of cash transfers in war torn african countries? The idea is that if we transfer cash from one guy to another we ought to have at least some say in how it's spend, like with most other shared social resources. I don't mind paying for someone's healthcare or food, I do mind paying for homeopathy and booze. If we socialise something we have a collective interest that it's being used responsibly.
and you are the one that gets to decide what a "responsible" use is? why do you immediately jump to the conclusion that people will be using their meagre guaranteed income on homeopathy?
but really i object to the idea that "you are paying" for someone else, like it's charity rather than social obligation. you are only fine with UBI when it's used to further the ends of a productivist technocracy that will increase your material well being. you are only for UBI when it is the only means around the barrier to capital reproduction that increasing inequality and consequent lack of aggregate demand presents.
edit: even the pro-market liberal above me agrees that your german ordoliberalism is ridiculous
|
On October 15 2016 03:05 IgnE wrote:Show nested quote +On October 15 2016 02:53 Nyxisto wrote:On October 15 2016 02:52 IgnE wrote:On October 15 2016 02:49 Nyxisto wrote:
Biggest problem with UBI is that handing cash out isn't very effective, better to put the money into some compulsory fund that people can spend, like foodstamps but for more stuff. and this is based on what? studies of cash transfers in war torn african countries? The idea is that if we transfer cash from one guy to another we ought to have at least some say in how it's spend, like with most other shared social resources. I don't mind paying for someone's healthcare or food, I do mind paying for homeopathy and booze. If we socialise something we have a collective interest that it's being used responsibly. and you are the one that gets to decide what a "responsible" use is? why do you immediately jump to the conclusion that people will be using their meagre guaranteed income on homeopathy? but really i object to the idea that "you are paying" for someone else, like it's charity rather than social obligation. you are only fine with UBI when it's used to further the ends of a productivist technocracy that will increase your material well being. you are only for UBI when it is the only means around the barrier to capital reproduction that increasing inequality and consequent lack of aggregate demand presents. edit: even the pro-market liberal above me agrees that your german ordoliberalism is ridiculous
I think you have it the wrong way around, if you're going to look where the support for universal income is largest it's going to be a college campus, not the Midwest. The people that bring the responsibility argument forward are almost always people who aren't that well off. "Our taxes aren't spent well" is an argument that you're not going to hear often in liberal technocratic circles.
The people that will block your generous UBI without conditions are going to be the people that need it the most if you're framing it in a way that looks like a gift. Those people like responsibility, they don't want sharing without conditions, has this really not gotten into people's heads after this whole election? If you're framing it the way you do the majority of people will shrug it off as a 'culture of dependency' especially in the US.
|
Netherlands45349 Posts
Another idea behind UBI(I haven't done too much research on it) is that by abolishing certain elements of the current social welfare system you will reduce the amount of money having to be spend on bureaucracy (I don't know how much this idea holds weight) but I believe its also more efficient that way in theory.
|
On October 15 2016 03:09 Nyxisto wrote:Show nested quote +On October 15 2016 03:05 IgnE wrote:On October 15 2016 02:53 Nyxisto wrote:On October 15 2016 02:52 IgnE wrote:On October 15 2016 02:49 Nyxisto wrote:
Biggest problem with UBI is that handing cash out isn't very effective, better to put the money into some compulsory fund that people can spend, like foodstamps but for more stuff. and this is based on what? studies of cash transfers in war torn african countries? The idea is that if we transfer cash from one guy to another we ought to have at least some say in how it's spend, like with most other shared social resources. I don't mind paying for someone's healthcare or food, I do mind paying for homeopathy and booze. If we socialise something we have a collective interest that it's being used responsibly. and you are the one that gets to decide what a "responsible" use is? why do you immediately jump to the conclusion that people will be using their meagre guaranteed income on homeopathy? but really i object to the idea that "you are paying" for someone else, like it's charity rather than social obligation. you are only fine with UBI when it's used to further the ends of a productivist technocracy that will increase your material well being. you are only for UBI when it is the only means around the barrier to capital reproduction that increasing inequality and consequent lack of aggregate demand presents. edit: even the pro-market liberal above me agrees that your german ordoliberalism is ridiculous I think you have it the wrong way around, if you're going to look where the support for universal income is largest it's going to be a college campus, not the Midwest. The people that bring the responsibility argument forward are almost always people who aren't that well off. "Our taxes aren't spent well" is an argument that you're not going to hear often in liberal technocratic circles. The people that will block your generous UBI without conditions are going to be the people that need it the most if you're framing it in a way that looks like a gift. Those people like responsibility, they don't want sharing without conditions, has this really not gotten into people's heads after this whole election?
so are you saying that you personally are fine with UBI without restrictions you just don't think that the republicans would go for it? i was speaking to you, not debating trumpkins
|
All this debate on rape culture really make me happy inside cauz it came from a comment I made about the lack of actual content of Michelle speech (nothing to do with the question of "rape culture").
The whole term is dumb anyway, like islamophobia, because it is a concept that conflate way too much, badly defined, that shroud reality rather than enlightening it. The useless debate here is a good exemple pf that.
|
We clearly had very different reactions to that speech. I thought it very clearly discussed a topic that we struggle to bring up in the US or have any discussion on the topic.
|
On October 15 2016 03:15 Plansix wrote:
We clearly had very different reactions to that speech.
I'm kinda unsensitive at this point and this constant speech expressing a need for "unity" is so used it fall short to me. If the word is divided, it is for real reasons, not because Trump is a sexist pig (which I will gladly concede he is).
|
On October 15 2016 03:12 IgnE wrote:Show nested quote +On October 15 2016 03:09 Nyxisto wrote:On October 15 2016 03:05 IgnE wrote:On October 15 2016 02:53 Nyxisto wrote:On October 15 2016 02:52 IgnE wrote:On October 15 2016 02:49 Nyxisto wrote:
Biggest problem with UBI is that handing cash out isn't very effective, better to put the money into some compulsory fund that people can spend, like foodstamps but for more stuff. and this is based on what? studies of cash transfers in war torn african countries? The idea is that if we transfer cash from one guy to another we ought to have at least some say in how it's spend, like with most other shared social resources. I don't mind paying for someone's healthcare or food, I do mind paying for homeopathy and booze. If we socialise something we have a collective interest that it's being used responsibly. and you are the one that gets to decide what a "responsible" use is? why do you immediately jump to the conclusion that people will be using their meagre guaranteed income on homeopathy? but really i object to the idea that "you are paying" for someone else, like it's charity rather than social obligation. you are only fine with UBI when it's used to further the ends of a productivist technocracy that will increase your material well being. you are only for UBI when it is the only means around the barrier to capital reproduction that increasing inequality and consequent lack of aggregate demand presents. edit: even the pro-market liberal above me agrees that your german ordoliberalism is ridiculous I think you have it the wrong way around, if you're going to look where the support for universal income is largest it's going to be a college campus, not the Midwest. The people that bring the responsibility argument forward are almost always people who aren't that well off. "Our taxes aren't spent well" is an argument that you're not going to hear often in liberal technocratic circles. The people that will block your generous UBI without conditions are going to be the people that need it the most if you're framing it in a way that looks like a gift. Those people like responsibility, they don't want sharing without conditions, has this really not gotten into people's heads after this whole election? so are you saying that you personally are fine with UBI without restrictions you just don't think that the republicans would go for it? i was speaking to you, not debating trumpkins
I don't like the idea of 'helicopter money' in principle (I honestly haven't read many studies whether it makes a big practical difference if we're just talking about a bare minimum UBI) but I'm not sure the distinction makes sense or is that interesting. I'm more interested in how we can get more social welfare to people and an important part of that is taking into account that especially in the US, but also in a lot of other places, unconditional redistribution will be perceived as a form of charity handouts and that is not going to be supported even by the poor.
I think it's very ironic that you accuse me of being the aloof technocrat and then go on to brush off the Trumpkins, which are after all the people for which UBI is most relevant. It's what tanked Bernie's primaries, his whole talk about 'making the system work for the poor' was very far removed from the mindset that the people had he wanted to win over. That's why Clinton, the aloof technocrat, wins 90% of the black vote.
|
On October 15 2016 02:48 IgnE wrote:Show nested quote +On October 15 2016 02:29 zlefin wrote:On October 15 2016 02:21 GreenHorizons wrote:On October 15 2016 02:18 zlefin wrote:
Dang, the thread went back to normal, oh well, at least I tried, sort of.
I should add something more substantive too, hmmm.
I think we're gonna have to raise retirement age for social security sooner or later, and we may as well setup the system with a better auto-adjusting mechanism. I have no idea how to address the issues with racial and other disparities in social security; there's no good apparent answer there. Ditch it and minimum wage for universal basic income? the country is not yet rich enough for ubi. But it is rich enough for a social security system. Also, part of the point of social security is to give it to people too old/unfit to work. ubi doesn't do that. I also rather doubt the political feasibilty of ubi at this time in the US. (as in it'd be even harder to do than reforming social security) what do you base this on? how rich would we need to be for UBI to work?
I base this on the typical costs to sustain a person for housing, food, basic medical care (depending on whether that remains its own system), some transportation, and miscellaneous stuff, based on averages of US minimum standards and laws. Then I compare to the current spending on social welfare programs at all levels.
The effects of ubi on employment levels and work are less clear, so I like to have some margin of error in case people work somewhat less.
I'd say we need to be around 3 times wealthier for ubi to work passably, something like 7x for it to work well; but I haven't run those numbers in detail. You could make it work sooner if you lowered the standards.
(i'm assuming you meant what was I basing it on for the rich stuff, not for the political feasibility part)
gh -> I saw your response, and I'm unsure how to respond to it.
|
On October 15 2016 03:17 WhiteDog wrote:Show nested quote +On October 15 2016 03:15 Plansix wrote:
We clearly had very different reactions to that speech. I'm kinda unsensitive at this point and this constant speech expressing a need for "unity" is so used it fall short to me. If the word is divided, it is for real reasons, not because Trump is a sexist pig (which I will gladly concede he is).
I agree on that point, but we didn't used to be. I don't think Trump is the cause. He is just the current shape of the issue we face in the US. But we still need people espousing the merits of unity and understanding.
|
its interesting how people react to terms like "rape culture" "microaggression" "political correctness" etc.
When I talk to conservative members of my family I find I can be much more persuasive if I just avoid using those buzzwords.
For example, if I argue to my cousin that asking colored americans 'where are you from," to try and find out their ethnic identity is an ignorant thing to do, then he will agree with me. But if I use the word "micro-aggression" in my argument then hel go off about how people are too sensitive.
I think people are just kind of conditioned to stop listening when they hear certain familiar phrases. like if you use the words 'mens rights' i pretty much stop listening to you.
|
Problem with UBI is I feel like we'd have to nix most of the existing social safety net. Not sure how we'd start with that challenge.
|
"Look, first of all, let me just say about Trump, who I admire and I’ve tried to help as much as I can. There’s a big Trump and a little Trump. The little Trump is frankly pathetic."
- N. Gingrich, 10/14/16
|
On October 15 2016 03:22 PassiveAce wrote:
its interesting how people react to terms like "rape culture" "microaggression" "political correctness" etc.
When I talk to conservative members of my family I find I can be much more persuasive if I just avoid using those buzzwords.
For example, if I argue to my cousin that asking colored americans 'where are you from," to try and find out their ethnic identity is an ignorant thing to do, then he will agree with me. But if I use the word "micro-aggression" in my argument then hel go off about how people are too sensitive.
I think people are just kind of conditioned to stop listening when they hear certain familiar phrases. like if you use the words 'mens rights' i pretty much stop listening to you.
That's because people still have some common sense. Micro agression, rape culture are dumb concept. Symbolic violence, masculine domination, that is intelligent.
|
On October 15 2016 02:26 WolfintheSheep wrote:
Nice to have this reminder why people stopped trying to have discussions with GH...
Claims made, conspiracies parroted, youtube/twitter embedded, insult everyone disagreeing with him, ignore all requests for evidence and details.
Good to have this all reiterated.
See here's the problem. When someone like WolfintheSheep mentions conspiracies, someone like Gorsameth should jump on him, cause he has argued that it would be perfectly normal for the DNC to play favourites. But he doesn't. Cause WolfintheSheep is on the right side of the debate, as he argues against GH.
There are countless examples of that. You're not arguing positions, you're arguing against him. I take issue with that.
|
On October 15 2016 03:22 PassiveAce wrote:
its interesting how people react to terms like "rape culture" "microaggression" "political correctness" etc.
When I talk to conservative members of my family I find I can be much more persuasive if I just avoid using those buzzwords.
For example, if I argue to my cousin that asking colored americans 'where are you from," to try and find out their ethnic identity is an ignorant thing to do, then he will agree with me. But if I use the word "micro-aggression" in my argument then hel go off about how people are too sensitive.
I think people are just kind of conditioned to stop listening when they hear certain familiar phrases. like if you use the words 'mens rights' i pretty much stop listening to you.
Do you explicitly use the phrase "colored Americans" when teaching your cousin how to be less offensive?
|
On October 15 2016 03:22 PassiveAce wrote:
its interesting how people react to terms like "rape culture" "microaggression" "political correctness" etc.
When I talk to conservative members of my family I find I can be much more persuasive if I just avoid using those buzzwords.
For example, if I argue to my cousin that asking colored americans 'where are you from," to try and find out their ethnic identity is an ignorant, racist, thing to do, then he will agree with me. But if I use the word "micro-aggression" in the conversation then hel go off about how people are too sensitive.
I think people are just kind of conditioned to stop listening when they hear certain familiar phrases. like if you use the words 'mens rights' i pretty much stop listening to you.
Have you seen the latest Trump Shirt? “Fuck your feelings! Make America Great Again.”
I think the main problem with the terms above is that they get “weaponized’ by people that want to avoid the discussion. The terms were created to put names to things common events people were experiencing, but were then turned into ways to discredit the discussion. You hear people talk about “Third Wave Feminism” or “micro aggressions” almost without context.
You see it all the time in this thread. We try to talk about racism and we end up going through racism 101 every time. And if you always stay on racism 101, the people never have to think about topic beyond the very surface.
|
On October 15 2016 03:27 oBlade wrote:Show nested quote +On October 15 2016 03:22 PassiveAce wrote:
its interesting how people react to terms like "rape culture" "microaggression" "political correctness" etc.
When I talk to conservative members of my family I find I can be much more persuasive if I just avoid using those buzzwords.
For example, if I argue to my cousin that asking colored americans 'where are you from," to try and find out their ethnic identity is an ignorant thing to do, then he will agree with me. But if I use the word "micro-aggression" in my argument then hel go off about how people are too sensitive.
I think people are just kind of conditioned to stop listening when they hear certain familiar phrases. like if you use the words 'mens rights' i pretty much stop listening to you. Do you explicitly use the phrase "colored Americans" when teaching your cousin how to be less offensive?
no cuz its offensive in the US for some reason ;d
|
In the hours of crude and misogynistic sex talk Trump engaged in when he appeared on The Howard Stern Show, one of the most common topics of discussion were famous women.
Trump and Stern would often rate, rank, and describe in sexual terms female celebrities. In appearances reviewed by CNN's KFile, Trump also told Stern he would pay not to receive oral sex from Rosie O'Donnell and teased a recently-deceased Anna Nicole Smith for her large lips.
...
On Lindsay Lohan:
In an appearance on Stern's show in December 2004, Trump initiated a conversation about actress Lindsay Lohan, who was 18 at the time.
"What do you think of Lindsay Lohan?" Trump asked Stern.
"I think she's hot," responded Stern.
"There's something there right?" Trump said. "But you have to like freckles. I've seen a, you know, close up of her chest and a lot of freckles. Are you into freckles?"
"I'm not into freckles, but the red hair thing I like. I like her on the cover of Entertainment Weekly," said Stern.
"Now does the father wreck, does that bother you a little bit?" Trump asked later in the conversation.
"Howard feels that the father being a wreck is a good thing," interjected co-host Robin Quivers.
"Oh yeah, because first of all, if the father's a wreck like the way he is--" Stern said.
"Right," said Trump.
"Can you imagine the sex with this troubled teen?" said Stern.
"Yeah, you're probably right," Trump said. "She's probably deeply troubled and therefore great in bed. How come the deeply troubled women, you know, deeply, deeply troubled, they're always the best in bed?"
...
On Rosie O'Donnell:
In a February 2007 episode, Trump took aim at Rosie O'Donnell, who he had a long running feud with, saying he'd pay lots of money to not receive oral sex from her.
"Is there nothing she could do to get back in your good graces? If she came in and blew you?" asked Stern.
"No, I'd pay a lot of money for that not to happen," Trump responded. "That's one of the most unattractive people. She took great offense at the fact I said she better be careful or I, or one of one friends would go and pick up her wife."
CNN
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
