|
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. |
On October 15 2016 03:19 Nyxisto wrote:Show nested quote +On October 15 2016 03:12 IgnE wrote: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.
so you personally are opposed to UBI because you are opposed to charity handouts but value keynesian stimulation as long as you get to decide how its spent. so in other words my criticism was dead on.
im not the one trying to tell the trumpkins how to spend their share of society's bounty. i am just pointing out that a discussion with you about your pseudofascist ordoliberal welfare schemes opposed to UBI is going to be different than one with a conservative mid westerner who opposed welfare all together.
@zlefin it would be helpful if you provided the guaranteed UBI number you are using instead of just saying 3-7x as wealthy. most UBI schemes propose numbers at or below the poverty threshold. it's also interesting that you round down (people might work less) instead of rounding up (increase in demand and the unleashing of the worker bees in a cognitive capital regime would increase material wealth).
|
On October 15 2016 03:30 PassiveAce wrote:Show nested quote +On October 15 2016 03:27 oBlade wrote: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
I thought it's offensive everywhere altough maybe it's a result of it being offensive in the US first.
|
On October 15 2016 03:26 Nebuchad wrote:Show nested quote +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.
I have at times questioned ridiculous statements from 'my side of the debate' and defended Trump (not that he does a lot that is worth defending)
But I can accept that I overlook things based on my bias yes.
(probably proven by the fact that I think 'my side' throws out a lot less conspiracy theories into this thread in the first place)
|
On October 15 2016 03:19 Nyxisto wrote:Show nested quote +On October 15 2016 03:12 IgnE wrote: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.
UBI isn't helicopter money. It's financed by tax and government deficits. Helicopter money is a monetary phenomenon where new money is created and directly given to consumers.
|
On October 15 2016 03:26 Nebuchad wrote:Show nested quote +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.
No, I spent the previous two pages arguing positions and asking for evidence, and after getting the usual runaround I reiterated that it's pointless to have discussions with GH.
If you would like to discuss DNC favouritism, that would be great. Let me reiterate my points on that: yes, it's normal for the system to allow favouritism because the Super Delegate system is very bluntly about the party having the power to override popular vote. It's is dishonest to say internal emails talking about opinions is against the rules when there is a much more blatant and official system that allows for far greater manipulation of results right in the open.
With that said, the question is if favouritism resulted in manipulation or impact on the popular vote, which is what requires evidence, and which is also a "conspiracy" so long as it's built only on supposition and suspicion.
|
On October 15 2016 03:38 Sent. wrote:Show nested quote +On October 15 2016 03:30 PassiveAce wrote:On October 15 2016 03:27 oBlade wrote: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 I thought it's offensive everywhere altough maybe it's a result of it being offensive in the US first.
iv heard people in west europe use it to describe people of middle-eastern, west asian descent.
maybe it is offensive everywhere i dunno
|
On October 15 2016 03:38 IgnE wrote:
so you personally are opposed to UBI because you are opposed to charity handouts but value keynesian stimulation as long as you get to decide how its spent. so in other words my criticism was dead on.
im not the one trying to tell the trumpkins how to spend their share of society's bounty. i am just pointing out that a discussion with you about your pseudofascist ordoliberal welfare schemes oppose UBI is going to be different than one with a conservative mid westerner who opposed welfare all together.
I still don't see what's fascist about it, it seems like a basic idea of fairness that if we redistribute money we don't do so unconditionally, this is already true for almost all tax redistribution. We don't just hand you your healthcare benefits in cash, we pay for your medical bills. Is this fascist? Should we just send you a syringe and a bonesaw and you can have at it? Is childcare authoritarian?
Almost all form of social benefits are supplied in the form of goods, institutions or assistance why is this offensive all of the sudden?
I'd rather see that expanded because it is a material benefit for the poor rather than reducing it and handing you bitcoin because that's much less 'technocratic'.
|
On October 15 2016 03:38 IgnE wrote:Show nested quote +On October 15 2016 03:19 Nyxisto wrote:On October 15 2016 03:12 IgnE wrote: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. so you personally are opposed to UBI because you are opposed to charity handouts but value keynesian stimulation as long as you get to decide how its spent. so in other words my criticism was dead on. im not the one trying to tell the trumpkins how to spend their share of society's bounty. i am just pointing out that a discussion with you about your pseudofascist ordoliberal welfare schemes opposed to UBI is going to be different than one with a conservative mid westerner who opposed welfare all together. @zlefin it would be helpful if you provided the guaranteed UBI number you are using instead of just saying 3-7x as wealthy. most UBI schemes propose numbers at or below the poverty threshold. it's also interesting that you round down (people might work less) instead of rounding up (increase in demand and the unleashing of the worker bees in a cognitive capital regime would increase material wealth).
I'm personally against UBI because it will be a good excuse for politicians to accept high level of unemployment, and I believe work to give much more to individuals than a simple revenu.
As for handling cash to individuals, it is the most efficient after directly investing in infrastructure, according to all evaluations.
|
On October 15 2016 03:45 Nyxisto wrote:Show nested quote +On October 15 2016 03:38 IgnE wrote:
so you personally are opposed to UBI because you are opposed to charity handouts but value keynesian stimulation as long as you get to decide how its spent. so in other words my criticism was dead on.
im not the one trying to tell the trumpkins how to spend their share of society's bounty. i am just pointing out that a discussion with you about your pseudofascist ordoliberal welfare schemes oppose UBI is going to be different than one with a conservative mid westerner who opposed welfare all together.
I still don't see what's fascist about it, it seems like a basic idea of fairness that if we redistribute money we don't do so unconditionally, this is already true for almost all tax redistribution. We don't just hand you your healthcare benefits in cash, we pay for your medical bills. Is this fascist? Should we just send you a syringe and and a bonesaw and you can have at it? Is paid childcare authoritarian? Almost all form of social benefits are supplied in the form of goods, institutions or assistance why is this offensive all of the sudden? I'd rather see that expanded because it is a material benefit for the poor rather than reducing it and handing you bitcoin because that's much less 'technocratic'.
because the real affliction for those in poverty is not the material deprivation, it's the lack of autonomy. the assertion that almost all forms of social benefits are supplied in the form of goods, institutions or assistance is incoherent on its own terms (what is "assistance"?) but is also clearly wrong. social security is a cash payment that is a significant portion of the budget. disability and unemployment are cash payment with strings attached.
@whitedog
i don't see why you can't have both. jobs need doing. UBI is not the same as enforcing completely egalitarian incomes. provide a base level of UBI w no strings and jobs.
|
On October 15 2016 03:41 WolfintheSheep wrote:Show nested quote +On October 15 2016 03:26 Nebuchad wrote: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. No, I spent the previous two pages arguing positions and asking for evidence, and after getting the usual runaround I reiterated that it's pointless to have discussions with GH. If you would like to discuss DNC favouritism, that would be great. Let me reiterate my points on that: yes, it's normal for the system to allow favouritism because the Super Delegate system is very bluntly about the party having the power to override popular vote. It's is dishonest to say internal emails talking about opinions is against the rules when there is a much more blatant and official system that allows for far greater manipulation of results right in the open. With that said, the question is if favouritism resulted in manipulation or impact on the popular vote, which is what requires evidence, and which is also a "conspiracy" so long as it's built only on supposition and suspicion.
It's obvious that it has impact. The question that you ask is whether this impact should be criticized or not.
|
On October 15 2016 03:57 Nebuchad wrote:Show nested quote +On October 15 2016 03:41 WolfintheSheep wrote:On October 15 2016 03:26 Nebuchad wrote: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. No, I spent the previous two pages arguing positions and asking for evidence, and after getting the usual runaround I reiterated that it's pointless to have discussions with GH. If you would like to discuss DNC favouritism, that would be great. Let me reiterate my points on that: yes, it's normal for the system to allow favouritism because the Super Delegate system is very bluntly about the party having the power to override popular vote. It's is dishonest to say internal emails talking about opinions is against the rules when there is a much more blatant and official system that allows for far greater manipulation of results right in the open. With that said, the question is if favouritism resulted in manipulation or impact on the popular vote, which is what requires evidence, and which is also a "conspiracy" so long as it's built only on supposition and suspicion. It's obvious that it has impact. The question that you ask is whether this impact should be criticized or not.
Please provide evidence that the impact on votes from DNC favoritism is obvious.
|
On October 15 2016 04:01 Gorsameth wrote:Show nested quote +On October 15 2016 03:57 Nebuchad wrote:On October 15 2016 03:41 WolfintheSheep wrote:On October 15 2016 03:26 Nebuchad wrote: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. No, I spent the previous two pages arguing positions and asking for evidence, and after getting the usual runaround I reiterated that it's pointless to have discussions with GH. If you would like to discuss DNC favouritism, that would be great. Let me reiterate my points on that: yes, it's normal for the system to allow favouritism because the Super Delegate system is very bluntly about the party having the power to override popular vote. It's is dishonest to say internal emails talking about opinions is against the rules when there is a much more blatant and official system that allows for far greater manipulation of results right in the open. With that said, the question is if favouritism resulted in manipulation or impact on the popular vote, which is what requires evidence, and which is also a "conspiracy" so long as it's built only on supposition and suspicion. It's obvious that it has impact. The question that you ask is whether this impact should be criticized or not. Please provide evidence that the impact on votes from DNC favoritism is obvious.
If someone has to ask, then its not obvious.
|
On October 15 2016 04:01 Gorsameth wrote:Show nested quote +On October 15 2016 03:57 Nebuchad wrote:On October 15 2016 03:41 WolfintheSheep wrote:On October 15 2016 03:26 Nebuchad wrote: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. No, I spent the previous two pages arguing positions and asking for evidence, and after getting the usual runaround I reiterated that it's pointless to have discussions with GH. If you would like to discuss DNC favouritism, that would be great. Let me reiterate my points on that: yes, it's normal for the system to allow favouritism because the Super Delegate system is very bluntly about the party having the power to override popular vote. It's is dishonest to say internal emails talking about opinions is against the rules when there is a much more blatant and official system that allows for far greater manipulation of results right in the open. With that said, the question is if favouritism resulted in manipulation or impact on the popular vote, which is what requires evidence, and which is also a "conspiracy" so long as it's built only on supposition and suspicion. It's obvious that it has impact. The question that you ask is whether this impact should be criticized or not. Please provide evidence that the impact on votes from DNC favoritism is obvious.
Hi, I'm the establishment. My stranglehold on politics in the US is so big that it's completely impossible to get elected without the help of one of the two major parties. However, when I'm one of those two major parties and I choose one candidate as my favourite over another, it has absolutely no impact on the chances of this candidate.
|
On October 15 2016 03:38 IgnE wrote:Show nested quote +On October 15 2016 03:19 Nyxisto wrote:On October 15 2016 03:12 IgnE wrote: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. so you personally are opposed to UBI because you are opposed to charity handouts but value keynesian stimulation as long as you get to decide how its spent. so in other words my criticism was dead on. im not the one trying to tell the trumpkins how to spend their share of society's bounty. i am just pointing out that a discussion with you about your pseudofascist ordoliberal welfare schemes opposed to UBI is going to be different than one with a conservative mid westerner who opposed welfare all together. @zlefin it would be helpful if you provided the guaranteed UBI number you are using instead of just saying 3-7x as wealthy. most UBI schemes propose numbers at or below the poverty threshold. it's also interesting that you round down (people might work less) instead of rounding up (increase in demand and the unleashing of the worker bees in a cognitive capital regime would increase material wealth).
I'm not using any specific number, but am considering an approximate vague range. It hadn't seemed necessary to go into details before.
let me look up some numbers: US poverty threshold guideline for a single individual: 11770; though it notes that additional individuals in the same household add far less, so there appears to be a considerable base cost; each extra individual in the household increases the threshold by 4160.
alot would depend on which of those you focus on for setting UBI.
based on http://www.cbpp.org/research/federal-budget/policy-basics-where-do-our-federal-tax-dollars-go
it looks like around 1.25 trillion spend on non-medical welfare programs.
with US pop around 320 million, that amounts to ~3900/person. state and local welfare programs surely add some, but are in general much smaller in size compared to the federal ones, so it should still be no more than ~4500/person.
Of course current spending levels are in part due to deficit spending, they'd be around 15% lower without that.
And if one were to shift all welfare programs to UBI, the money would be less focused on the elderly/disabled, so they'd be getting less than they currently do. (and it might not be enough, they tend to have higher needs than younger, healthier people who can do more of their own work)
The food support systems generally assume around $6.00/day/person to feed a person decently (it can be done for less, if you have good stores nearby and do your own cooking, not sure how the amortization of basic kitchen supplies works).
Housing costs are considerable, some places in the country have quite high housing costs. Rents from 500-1000/month depending on location, for basic housing. add a bit more for utilities (depending on whether utilities were covered under the rent)
I round down because I prefer to be conservative in fiscal projections, so that there is a safety margin in case the programs consequences are worse than estimates indicated; there's always some uncertainty in such things. It's easy to handle a surplus gracefully, it's much harder to handle a deficit well.
So, there are some numbers of things, provided as requested.
|
United Kingdom13775 Posts
The biggest favoritism was probably simply the massive superdelegate advantage Hillary started with. That basically crowded out all other viable establishment opposition, leaving Bernie Sanders as the only possible viable opposition. He also suffered strongly from poor exposure early on in the campaign, probably also because of Hillary's superdelegate advantage. And people really do have a tendency to just fall in line with the party line option, which in this case was Hillary without a doubt. If he had more exposure earlier in the campaign, he may well have managed to edge Hillary out. Judging by the fact that there have been quite a few people who said they chose Hillary but now wonder if Sanders might have been better, while most Sanders people still think they were right to make that choice, timing might have made a substantial difference.
|
Anyone watching Allred's press conference? Supposedly it is an apprentice candidate alleging abuse. Don't have tv or non mobile internet to watch myself atm
|
On October 15 2016 03:56 IgnE wrote:Show nested quote +On October 15 2016 03:45 Nyxisto wrote:On October 15 2016 03:38 IgnE wrote:
so you personally are opposed to UBI because you are opposed to charity handouts but value keynesian stimulation as long as you get to decide how its spent. so in other words my criticism was dead on.
im not the one trying to tell the trumpkins how to spend their share of society's bounty. i am just pointing out that a discussion with you about your pseudofascist ordoliberal welfare schemes oppose UBI is going to be different than one with a conservative mid westerner who opposed welfare all together.
I still don't see what's fascist about it, it seems like a basic idea of fairness that if we redistribute money we don't do so unconditionally, this is already true for almost all tax redistribution. We don't just hand you your healthcare benefits in cash, we pay for your medical bills. Is this fascist? Should we just send you a syringe and and a bonesaw and you can have at it? Is paid childcare authoritarian? Almost all form of social benefits are supplied in the form of goods, institutions or assistance why is this offensive all of the sudden? I'd rather see that expanded because it is a material benefit for the poor rather than reducing it and handing you bitcoin because that's much less 'technocratic'. because the real affliction for those in poverty is not the material deprivation, it's the lack of autonomy. the assertion that almost all forms of social benefits are supplied in the form of goods, institutions or assistance is incoherent on its own terms (what is "assistance"?) but is also clearly wrong. social security is a cash payment that is a significant portion of the budget. disability and unemployment are cash payment with strings attached. @whitedog i don't see why you can't have both. jobs need doing. UBI is not the same as enforcing completely egalitarian incomes. provide a base level of UBI w no strings and jobs.
Don't you think ot will be used as such ? In europe, most UBI i've learned about goes with the end of social security. It's an individualization of welfare.
|
On October 15 2016 03:56 IgnE wrote:
because the real affliction for those in poverty is not the material deprivation, it's the lack of autonomy. the assertion that almost all forms of social benefits are supplied in the form of goods, institutions or assistance is incoherent on its own terms (what is "assistance"?) but is also clearly wrong. social security is a cash payment that is a significant portion of the budget. disability and unemployment are cash payment with strings attached.
but this is only autonomy in a super-individualist sense. For example if we had to choose between sending you to college for free or paying for your college stipend and handing you out the equivalent amount of money in cash, you technically have more autonomy with the cash handout but you're not building towards any kind of community or social structure. Aren't you the guy always stressing that humans are social animal? UBI is essentially the latest form of capitalism, you're turning everybody into a mini-investor. There's no shared responsibility in that system at all, which for me is a much more meaningful way to talk about autonomy.
edit: whoops ninja'd. I agree with WhiteDog, what a time to be alive
|
United Kingdom13775 Posts
On October 15 2016 04:08 WhiteDog wrote:Show nested quote +On October 15 2016 03:56 IgnE wrote:On October 15 2016 03:45 Nyxisto wrote:On October 15 2016 03:38 IgnE wrote:
so you personally are opposed to UBI because you are opposed to charity handouts but value keynesian stimulation as long as you get to decide how its spent. so in other words my criticism was dead on.
im not the one trying to tell the trumpkins how to spend their share of society's bounty. i am just pointing out that a discussion with you about your pseudofascist ordoliberal welfare schemes oppose UBI is going to be different than one with a conservative mid westerner who opposed welfare all together.
I still don't see what's fascist about it, it seems like a basic idea of fairness that if we redistribute money we don't do so unconditionally, this is already true for almost all tax redistribution. We don't just hand you your healthcare benefits in cash, we pay for your medical bills. Is this fascist? Should we just send you a syringe and and a bonesaw and you can have at it? Is paid childcare authoritarian? Almost all form of social benefits are supplied in the form of goods, institutions or assistance why is this offensive all of the sudden? I'd rather see that expanded because it is a material benefit for the poor rather than reducing it and handing you bitcoin because that's much less 'technocratic'. because the real affliction for those in poverty is not the material deprivation, it's the lack of autonomy. the assertion that almost all forms of social benefits are supplied in the form of goods, institutions or assistance is incoherent on its own terms (what is "assistance"?) but is also clearly wrong. social security is a cash payment that is a significant portion of the budget. disability and unemployment are cash payment with strings attached. @whitedog i don't see why you can't have both. jobs need doing. UBI is not the same as enforcing completely egalitarian incomes. provide a base level of UBI w no strings and jobs. Don't you think ot will be used as such ? In europe, most UBI i've learned about goes with the end of social security. It's an individualization of welfare.
I saw it more as a "making a good socialized program is hard so let's just hand out a lump sum of money instead!" system in most UBI proposals I saw.
|
On October 15 2016 04:08 LegalLord wrote:
The biggest favoritism was probably simply the massive superdelegate advantage Hillary started with. That basically crowded out all other viable establishment opposition, leaving Bernie Sanders as the only possible viable opposition. He also suffered strongly from poor exposure early on in the campaign, probably also because of Hillary's superdelegate advantage. And people really do have a tendency to just fall in line with the party line option, which in this case was Hillary without a doubt. If he had more exposure earlier in the campaign, he may well have managed to edge Hillary out. Judging by the fact that there have been quite a few people who said they chose Hillary but now wonder if Sanders might have been better, while most Sanders people still think they were right to make that choice, timing might have made a substantial difference.
Yeah that sounds right.
I wouldn't call that favoritism tho. Hillary is a Democrat who has worked with Democrat super delegates for years.
Bernie was an outsider coming in.
The super delegates favoring Hillary early on makes perfect sense.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
