|
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. |
I have read the majority of frontline articles and documentaries, but they are biased, they even source a member of the saudi real family known for giving support to isis kek.
I read about this conflict everyday since 2011 from different sources, both pro-regime , pro-rebel ,western and middle-eastern so i have a fairly accurate idea of what the conflict is about but thank you.
|
On October 15 2016 05:52 IgnE wrote:Show nested quote +On October 15 2016 05:43 zlefin wrote:On October 15 2016 05:40 IgnE wrote:On October 15 2016 05:34 zlefin wrote:On October 15 2016 04:53 IgnE wrote:On October 15 2016 04:07 zlefin wrote:On October 15 2016 03:38 IgnE wrote:On October 15 2016 03:19 Nyxisto wrote:On October 15 2016 03:12 IgnE wrote:On October 15 2016 03:09 Nyxisto wrote:
[quote]
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-goit 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. so what happens when you raise taxes on persons that can pay more and reduce military spending? seems like you get pretty close to say $9k a year in UBI. you're talking about an awfully big tax increase. 9k/year per person, runs around 3 trillion total. So you'd need to raise revenue by some 1.75 trillion, or about 9% of gdp iirc. halving military spending would get you .3 trillion (and is obviously politically infeasible). so you'd still need 1.45 trillion; so a tax increase of say 7% on EVERYONE, with no exceptions or deductions reducing it. Or you'd run a tax increase of 10% on some people; which pushes the net brackets quite high, they're already high enough that diminishing returns effects hamper them. 7% tax on people making middle class income now is not that big a deal when they are getting $9k back in UBI. your vague assertions about diminishing returns are unconvincing i'm providing information for those who ask it. I'm not interested in people being needlessly argumentative. You're also not doing a full accounting about the money they'd be getting back, and the net changes to how various distributions would affect each group, and what the actual change in net distributions is. You're more than welcome to do a full look at the numbers if you're not satisfied with mine, and make your own vague claims about them; or do a full work-up of the feasibility of various approaches. im responding to your complete dismissal of the idea based on incomplete back of the envelope calculation. yeah i did'nt do a full accounting but i think ive established that its far more plausible than you make it out. its always rich to hear you call me argumentative while acting like an impartial arbiter just taking note of objective "facts".
I provided my estimate of its feasibility. If I were in congress, I'd have given a far more thorough dismissal, but this is an internet gaming forum, so the standards are lower (despite evidence to the contrary). Just because the numbers can be reconciled doesn't mean it's anywhere near politically feasible; nor does it mean the net economic effect of such would be beneficial. You're free to do your own analysis and post it. I'd rather you disagree by bringing in more facts and analysis.
And people can freely choose to believe my estimates or not.
And I aim to spread the riches, so I'm glad you got rich by hearing me talk thus.
|
On October 15 2016 05:51 PassiveAce wrote:Show nested quote +Donald Trump on Friday seemed to appraise Hillary Clinton's physical appearance at a rally, telling supporters that when he saw her walk in front of him during Sunday’s presidential debate he “wasn’t impressed.”
“I’m standing at my podium and she walks in front of me, right,” Trump said during a rally in Greensboro, North Carolina. “She walks in front of me, you know. And when she walked in front of me, believe me, I wasn’t impressed.”
www.politico.com
Well as we know Trump is more into 20 year olds and such, not 70 year old ladies.
|
Canada8988 Posts
On October 15 2016 05:44 ImFromPortugal wrote:Show nested quote +On October 15 2016 05:32 Thieving Magpie wrote:On October 15 2016 05:20 ImFromPortugal wrote:"Rebels" in Aleppo is not a single group, it is multiple different groups each with their own biases and issues. That you think there is a united rebel force shows you know about as much about what's happening as Bernie and Johnson does. Its a complicated mess. I can bet that i know much more than you will ever know about this matter, the rebels in Aleppo have their hands tied because they need the support of Alqaeda and other extremist groups, the latest offensive to break the siege paved way to the unification of many of the rebels forces there and also prompted the re branding of Alnusra into Jabhat Fateh Al-Sham. I could name the majority of rebels forces present on all the major offensives, can you do the same? Now back to my question, why would the americans arm the rebels in Aleppo thus helping Alqaeda achieve their goals in Syria? Take into consideration that i have been against the regime and the russian intervention from the beginning, as you can attest by checking my posts back in 2011 when the civil war started. Right now your presidential candidate openly says that she wants to arm Alqaeda and you americans are still whiling to vote for her, that i cannot understand. If you are unwilling to think of Syrian rebels as anything but Alqaeda terrorists, then we should just end this discussion right now. I'm not but nice straw man i have been siding with the rebels for the majority of the civil war, but right now Alqaeda is the main force behind the offensive operations in Aleppo.. those are the facts.
Alqaeda beeing the main force in Aleppo dosen't mean they would be the main force in a post-Adsad regime. So yes maybe arming Al-Cham, along with others rebels groups can be the right call, they are much more interested and occupy by dealing with Assad then ruling their territories or threatening the US. And they clearly can't win vs Assad just by themself, they would need help from other rebells groups it is what going in Aleppo right now after all, they are not fighting between each other. If it is necessery for pushing back Assad and restarting the opposition mouvement then it might be worth it, of course it is more complex then that but it is an idea you can defend.
Letting Assad and the Russian killing everyone is not making the US any friends and is a big argument for recruting terrorist outside of Syria.
But personnally I think it is wait to late for that, first Aleppo will be lost come january outside of a miracle, so forget arming those, anyway it would mean breaking the siege. And the other the pocket of resistance are to spread out to do anythings else without a massive outside help, like on the ground troups. Only the Kurds could win their rebellion but they are clearly not going to the help of the syrian rebels.
|
Backing things up a bit, the UBI is conceptually flawed in that it, like many other policy-oriented applications of economic theory, is inconsistent with its own terms of implementation. The UBI is designed to operate in place of conventional government social welfare programs through its apparent reduction in overhead and virtually uniform implementation mechanism. Furthermore, the UBI's potential to dramatically reduce the need for specific service/product market regulation seems quite attractive to many.
However, the UBI utterly fails to address one of the key justifications for government run social welfare programs, namely that the services/products being provided by or through the government are inherently ill-fitted to deregulation and the "free market" as a model. Generally speaking, the propriety of market-specific regulation correlates negatively with the degree to which the market at issue lends itself to the "rational actor" assumption. In other words, where the "rational actor" assumption can be applied without much caveat, deregulation and a lack of government involvement is likely appropriate.
The "rational actor" assumption requires a number of things vis-a-vis the consumption of the good at issue; for example, free access to evaluative information, a minimum number of consumption alternatives, and a relatively untethered purchase choice event are all needed to some degree in order for the "rational actor" assumption to hold much weight. Accordingly, the flaws in using the UBI as a replacement for the social safety net start becoming clear when one evaluates the products/services being provided through the above lens. As I've posted in this thread and others previously, healthcare, education, and minimum basic living necessities (water, electricity, shelter, and food for the most part) are market areas where the "rational actor" assumption holds very little weight because the products/services at issue are typically consumed in the context of a significant disequilibrium in information/expertise, an emergency, or an otherwise burdened purchase choice event (if you are uneducated, deciding what "good education" is becomes practically impossible without outside assistance).
In sum, the UBI only sounds good until it is forced to come to terms with the economic theory it conveniently ignores in reaching its policy conclusions (it should be mentioned that this a la carte approach is used throughout economics and is largely why economics is a field in crisis).
|
On October 15 2016 06:06 Nakajin wrote:Show nested quote +On October 15 2016 05:44 ImFromPortugal wrote:On October 15 2016 05:32 Thieving Magpie wrote:On October 15 2016 05:20 ImFromPortugal wrote:"Rebels" in Aleppo is not a single group, it is multiple different groups each with their own biases and issues. That you think there is a united rebel force shows you know about as much about what's happening as Bernie and Johnson does. Its a complicated mess. I can bet that i know much more than you will ever know about this matter, the rebels in Aleppo have their hands tied because they need the support of Alqaeda and other extremist groups, the latest offensive to break the siege paved way to the unification of many of the rebels forces there and also prompted the re branding of Alnusra into Jabhat Fateh Al-Sham. I could name the majority of rebels forces present on all the major offensives, can you do the same? Now back to my question, why would the americans arm the rebels in Aleppo thus helping Alqaeda achieve their goals in Syria? Take into consideration that i have been against the regime and the russian intervention from the beginning, as you can attest by checking my posts back in 2011 when the civil war started. Right now your presidential candidate openly says that she wants to arm Alqaeda and you americans are still whiling to vote for her, that i cannot understand. If you are unwilling to think of Syrian rebels as anything but Alqaeda terrorists, then we should just end this discussion right now. I'm not but nice straw man i have been siding with the rebels for the majority of the civil war, but right now Alqaeda is the main force behind the offensive operations in Aleppo.. those are the facts. Alqaeda beeing the main force in Aleppo dosen't mean they would be the main force in a post-Adsad regime. So yes maybe arming Al-Cham, along with others rebels groups can be the right call, they are much more interested and occupy by dealing with Assad then ruling their territories or threatening the US. And they clearly can't win vs Assad just by themself, they would need help from other rebells groups it is what going in Aleppo right now after all, they are not fighting between each other. If it is necessery for pushing back Assad and restarting the opposition mouvement then it might be worth it, of course it is more complex then that but it is an idea you can defend. Letting Assad and the Russian killing everyone is not making the US any friends and is a big argument for recruting terrorist outside of Syria. But personnally I think it is wait to late for that, first Aleppo will be lost come january outside of a miracle, so forget arming those, anyway it would mean breaking the siege. And the other the pocket of resistance are to spread out to do anythings else without a massive outside help, like on the ground troups. Only the Kurds could win their rebellion but they are clearly not going to the help of the syrian rebels.
Aleppo is mostly lost i don't think they will be able to help the rebels unless they impose a no-fly-zone. One thing the west seems to forget is that regime held Aleppo is home to thousands of civilians that would suffer if not massacred if the rebels were able to besiege them.
Regarding the Kurds, now that Turkey has invaded Syria that is out of the question, they will not let the Kurds unite their cantons.
|
On October 15 2016 05:52 Mohdoo wrote:
Webb is the future of the republican party. Or so I hope.
My nightmare scenario is if the party throws out the elites and replaces them with redistributionary ideas.
They then woo young minorities and immigrants with social conservatism setting back liberal progress generations on those issues as I can no longer take solace that boomer bible thumpers are dying out. That is a be careful what you wish for argument liberals make when they suggest that the Republican party could make inroads with the minority/immigrant vote if the party wasn't overtly racist or xenophobic.
A redistribution/religious/minority coalition terrifies me that they might be able to get to 270 aganst basically every one of my positions.
|
On October 15 2016 05:55 ImFromPortugal wrote:Show nested quote +On October 15 2016 05:52 Thieving Magpie wrote:On October 15 2016 05:44 ImFromPortugal wrote:On October 15 2016 05:32 Thieving Magpie wrote:On October 15 2016 05:20 ImFromPortugal wrote:"Rebels" in Aleppo is not a single group, it is multiple different groups each with their own biases and issues. That you think there is a united rebel force shows you know about as much about what's happening as Bernie and Johnson does. Its a complicated mess. I can bet that i know much more than you will ever know about this matter, the rebels in Aleppo have their hands tied because they need the support of Alqaeda and other extremist groups, the latest offensive to break the siege paved way to the unification of many of the rebels forces there and also prompted the re branding of Alnusra into Jabhat Fateh Al-Sham. I could name the majority of rebels forces present on all the major offensives, can you do the same? Now back to my question, why would the americans arm the rebels in Aleppo thus helping Alqaeda achieve their goals in Syria? Take into consideration that i have been against the regime and the russian intervention from the beginning, as you can attest by checking my posts back in 2011 when the civil war started. Right now your presidential candidate openly says that she wants to arm Alqaeda and you americans are still whiling to vote for her, that i cannot understand. If you are unwilling to think of Syrian rebels as anything but Alqaeda terrorists, then we should just end this discussion right now. I'm not but nice straw man i have been siding with the rebels for the majority of the civil war, but right now Alqaeda is the main force behind the offensive operations in Aleppo.. those are the facts. Oh really? Because you said: arm the rebels in Aleppo thus helping Alqaeda And you also said: she wants to arm Alqaeda So tell me how you are not equating the rebels as being Alqaeda? And once you figured out what that argument is, convince yourself of it so you don't contradict yourself so embarrassingly. Rebels are getting support from whoever is giving said support. They are dying, en mass, they will take help from anyone. Providing support to those asking for it is not the same as giving support to the previous suppliers of it. A,B => A,C is not A,B => B,C It seems you are not that smart, The rebels depend on Alqaeda to be successful, if they depended on isis instead would you still want to help them? When you give the weapons to those rebels in Aleppo knowing that they will be used by Alqaeda, because they are the brunt of the attack forces would equal to supporting them thus helping Alqaeda achive their goals in Syria, do you understand now or you need me to paint it for you?
Nice backtrack.
So you started by saying the helping the rebels is helping alqaeda and now you're backtracking to helping the rebels gives alqaeda possible access to the resources we give to the rebels. So the real issue you have is that right now the rebels don't have enough resources to be able to both say no to help from Alqaeda and continue fighting. Which makes this a resource scarcity discussion and not a "Syrian Rebels are Alqaeda" discussion.
|
On October 15 2016 06:01 zlefin wrote:Show nested quote +On October 15 2016 05:52 IgnE wrote:On October 15 2016 05:43 zlefin wrote:On October 15 2016 05:40 IgnE wrote:On October 15 2016 05:34 zlefin wrote:On October 15 2016 04:53 IgnE wrote:On October 15 2016 04:07 zlefin wrote:On October 15 2016 03:38 IgnE wrote:On October 15 2016 03:19 Nyxisto wrote:On October 15 2016 03:12 IgnE wrote:
[quote]
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-goit 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. so what happens when you raise taxes on persons that can pay more and reduce military spending? seems like you get pretty close to say $9k a year in UBI. you're talking about an awfully big tax increase. 9k/year per person, runs around 3 trillion total. So you'd need to raise revenue by some 1.75 trillion, or about 9% of gdp iirc. halving military spending would get you .3 trillion (and is obviously politically infeasible). so you'd still need 1.45 trillion; so a tax increase of say 7% on EVERYONE, with no exceptions or deductions reducing it. Or you'd run a tax increase of 10% on some people; which pushes the net brackets quite high, they're already high enough that diminishing returns effects hamper them. 7% tax on people making middle class income now is not that big a deal when they are getting $9k back in UBI. your vague assertions about diminishing returns are unconvincing i'm providing information for those who ask it. I'm not interested in people being needlessly argumentative. You're also not doing a full accounting about the money they'd be getting back, and the net changes to how various distributions would affect each group, and what the actual change in net distributions is. You're more than welcome to do a full look at the numbers if you're not satisfied with mine, and make your own vague claims about them; or do a full work-up of the feasibility of various approaches. im responding to your complete dismissal of the idea based on incomplete back of the envelope calculation. yeah i did'nt do a full accounting but i think ive established that its far more plausible than you make it out. its always rich to hear you call me argumentative while acting like an impartial arbiter just taking note of objective "facts". I provided my estimate of its feasibility. If I were in congress, I'd have given a far more thorough dismissal, but this is an internet gaming forum, so the standards are lower (despite evidence to the contrary). Just because the numbers can be reconciled doesn't mean it's anywhere near politically feasible; nor does it mean the net economic effect of such would be beneficial. You're free to do your own analysis and post it. I'd rather you disagree by bringing in more facts and analysis. And people can freely choose to believe my estimates or not. And I aim to spread the riches, so I'm glad you got rich by hearing me talk thus.
the "politically feasible" argument is not only mostly irrelevant but feeds back into itself, as the discussion itself affects the public's estimation of its feasibility. it's a lazy argument that takes advantage of the fact that the future is contingent upon the present.
so you bring up your doubts about its "net economic benefit" which, no doubt, has been your major objection all along, and is the center from which your productivist, liberal ideology radiates outward. i would just point to my previous discussikn about the benefits of worker bee pollination in a "knowledge economy" as the basis for what my argument would be for why i think UBI as part of more comprehensive reforms would be a net positive
@farva
well yeah. if wolfstan and i seem to agree about an economic reform there are probably some underexplained assumptions. it seems pretty obvious that a UBI that completely replaced healthcare/education/other subsidized public good funding would be a complete disaster
|
On October 15 2016 06:14 Thieving Magpie wrote:Show nested quote +On October 15 2016 05:55 ImFromPortugal wrote:On October 15 2016 05:52 Thieving Magpie wrote:On October 15 2016 05:44 ImFromPortugal wrote:On October 15 2016 05:32 Thieving Magpie wrote:On October 15 2016 05:20 ImFromPortugal wrote:"Rebels" in Aleppo is not a single group, it is multiple different groups each with their own biases and issues. That you think there is a united rebel force shows you know about as much about what's happening as Bernie and Johnson does. Its a complicated mess. I can bet that i know much more than you will ever know about this matter, the rebels in Aleppo have their hands tied because they need the support of Alqaeda and other extremist groups, the latest offensive to break the siege paved way to the unification of many of the rebels forces there and also prompted the re branding of Alnusra into Jabhat Fateh Al-Sham. I could name the majority of rebels forces present on all the major offensives, can you do the same? Now back to my question, why would the americans arm the rebels in Aleppo thus helping Alqaeda achieve their goals in Syria? Take into consideration that i have been against the regime and the russian intervention from the beginning, as you can attest by checking my posts back in 2011 when the civil war started. Right now your presidential candidate openly says that she wants to arm Alqaeda and you americans are still whiling to vote for her, that i cannot understand. If you are unwilling to think of Syrian rebels as anything but Alqaeda terrorists, then we should just end this discussion right now. I'm not but nice straw man i have been siding with the rebels for the majority of the civil war, but right now Alqaeda is the main force behind the offensive operations in Aleppo.. those are the facts. Oh really? Because you said: arm the rebels in Aleppo thus helping Alqaeda And you also said: she wants to arm Alqaeda So tell me how you are not equating the rebels as being Alqaeda? And once you figured out what that argument is, convince yourself of it so you don't contradict yourself so embarrassingly. Rebels are getting support from whoever is giving said support. They are dying, en mass, they will take help from anyone. Providing support to those asking for it is not the same as giving support to the previous suppliers of it. A,B => A,C is not A,B => B,C It seems you are not that smart, The rebels depend on Alqaeda to be successful, if they depended on isis instead would you still want to help them? When you give the weapons to those rebels in Aleppo knowing that they will be used by Alqaeda, because they are the brunt of the attack forces would equal to supporting them thus helping Alqaeda achive their goals in Syria, do you understand now or you need me to paint it for you? Nice backtrack. So you started by saying the helping the rebels is helping alqaeda and now you're backtracking to helping the rebels gives alqaeda possible access to the resources we give to the rebels. So the real issue you have is that right now the rebels don't have enough resources to be able to both say no to help from Alqaeda and continue fighting. Which makes this a resource scarcity discussion and not a "Syrian Rebels are Alqaeda" discussion.
Helping the rebels gives alqaeda possible access to the resources we give to the rebels = helping alqaeda.
Its literally the same thing.
|
On October 15 2016 06:18 IgnE wrote:Show nested quote +On October 15 2016 06:01 zlefin wrote:On October 15 2016 05:52 IgnE wrote:On October 15 2016 05:43 zlefin wrote:On October 15 2016 05:40 IgnE wrote:On October 15 2016 05:34 zlefin wrote:On October 15 2016 04:53 IgnE wrote:On October 15 2016 04:07 zlefin wrote:On October 15 2016 03:38 IgnE wrote:On October 15 2016 03:19 Nyxisto wrote:
[quote]
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-goit 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. so what happens when you raise taxes on persons that can pay more and reduce military spending? seems like you get pretty close to say $9k a year in UBI. you're talking about an awfully big tax increase. 9k/year per person, runs around 3 trillion total. So you'd need to raise revenue by some 1.75 trillion, or about 9% of gdp iirc. halving military spending would get you .3 trillion (and is obviously politically infeasible). so you'd still need 1.45 trillion; so a tax increase of say 7% on EVERYONE, with no exceptions or deductions reducing it. Or you'd run a tax increase of 10% on some people; which pushes the net brackets quite high, they're already high enough that diminishing returns effects hamper them. 7% tax on people making middle class income now is not that big a deal when they are getting $9k back in UBI. your vague assertions about diminishing returns are unconvincing i'm providing information for those who ask it. I'm not interested in people being needlessly argumentative. You're also not doing a full accounting about the money they'd be getting back, and the net changes to how various distributions would affect each group, and what the actual change in net distributions is. You're more than welcome to do a full look at the numbers if you're not satisfied with mine, and make your own vague claims about them; or do a full work-up of the feasibility of various approaches. im responding to your complete dismissal of the idea based on incomplete back of the envelope calculation. yeah i did'nt do a full accounting but i think ive established that its far more plausible than you make it out. its always rich to hear you call me argumentative while acting like an impartial arbiter just taking note of objective "facts". I provided my estimate of its feasibility. If I were in congress, I'd have given a far more thorough dismissal, but this is an internet gaming forum, so the standards are lower (despite evidence to the contrary). Just because the numbers can be reconciled doesn't mean it's anywhere near politically feasible; nor does it mean the net economic effect of such would be beneficial. You're free to do your own analysis and post it. I'd rather you disagree by bringing in more facts and analysis. And people can freely choose to believe my estimates or not. And I aim to spread the riches, so I'm glad you got rich by hearing me talk thus. the "politically feasible" argument is not only mostly irrelevant but feeds back into itself, as the discussion itself affects the public's estimation of its feasibility. it's a lazy argument that takes advantage of the fact that the future is contingent upon the present. so you bring up your doubts about its "net economic benefit" which, no doubt, has been your major objection all along, and is the center from which your productivist, liberal ideolofg radiates outward. i would just point to my previous discussikn about the benefits of worker bee pollination in a "knowledge economy" as the basis for what my argument would be for why i think UBI as part of more comprehensive reforms would be a net positive
I disagree on the feasibility arguments. It's hard to push something without laying more groundwork. You're welcome to try campaigning on such a platform.
Now you strawman me, and assume what my position is, rather than asking, which proves that you are arguing improperly and are not worth discussing with further.
You're also using jargon I do not recognize, which makes some of that paragraph unintelligible.
|
Farvacola you use long strings of big words but communicate little sound sense.
UBI is not conceptually designed as a social welfare service, although it does efficiently replace the need for those kinds of bloated and human-factor-operated mechanisms.
UBI at its core is "communism in practice" without any of the fascist bs, it merely ensures that every citizen of planet Earth receives some of his human inheritance in the form of resources necessary to avoid existential terror / ruin so they can participate on the free market as a sovereign player.
|
On October 15 2016 06:14 Thieving Magpie wrote:Show nested quote +On October 15 2016 05:55 ImFromPortugal wrote:On October 15 2016 05:52 Thieving Magpie wrote:On October 15 2016 05:44 ImFromPortugal wrote:On October 15 2016 05:32 Thieving Magpie wrote:On October 15 2016 05:20 ImFromPortugal wrote:"Rebels" in Aleppo is not a single group, it is multiple different groups each with their own biases and issues. That you think there is a united rebel force shows you know about as much about what's happening as Bernie and Johnson does. Its a complicated mess. I can bet that i know much more than you will ever know about this matter, the rebels in Aleppo have their hands tied because they need the support of Alqaeda and other extremist groups, the latest offensive to break the siege paved way to the unification of many of the rebels forces there and also prompted the re branding of Alnusra into Jabhat Fateh Al-Sham. I could name the majority of rebels forces present on all the major offensives, can you do the same? Now back to my question, why would the americans arm the rebels in Aleppo thus helping Alqaeda achieve their goals in Syria? Take into consideration that i have been against the regime and the russian intervention from the beginning, as you can attest by checking my posts back in 2011 when the civil war started. Right now your presidential candidate openly says that she wants to arm Alqaeda and you americans are still whiling to vote for her, that i cannot understand. If you are unwilling to think of Syrian rebels as anything but Alqaeda terrorists, then we should just end this discussion right now. I'm not but nice straw man i have been siding with the rebels for the majority of the civil war, but right now Alqaeda is the main force behind the offensive operations in Aleppo.. those are the facts. Oh really? Because you said: arm the rebels in Aleppo thus helping Alqaeda And you also said: she wants to arm Alqaeda So tell me how you are not equating the rebels as being Alqaeda? And once you figured out what that argument is, convince yourself of it so you don't contradict yourself so embarrassingly. Rebels are getting support from whoever is giving said support. They are dying, en mass, they will take help from anyone. Providing support to those asking for it is not the same as giving support to the previous suppliers of it. A,B => A,C is not A,B => B,C It seems you are not that smart, The rebels depend on Alqaeda to be successful, if they depended on isis instead would you still want to help them? When you give the weapons to those rebels in Aleppo knowing that they will be used by Alqaeda, because they are the brunt of the attack forces would equal to supporting them thus helping Alqaeda achive their goals in Syria, do you understand now or you need me to paint it for you? Nice backtrack. So you started by saying the helping the rebels is helping alqaeda and now you're backtracking to helping the rebels gives alqaeda possible access to the resources we give to the rebels. So the real issue you have is that right now the rebels don't have enough resources to be able to both say no to help from Alqaeda and continue fighting. Which makes this a resource scarcity discussion and not a "Syrian Rebels are Alqaeda" discussion.
Dude i said that if you send weapons to the rebels you will be helping Alqaeda, if the rebels are able to break the siege it will be due to Alqaeda help, they are the most competent forces among the rebels, if they are able to win in Aleppo Alqaeda will be seen as the heroes and their street cred will go trough the roof. I don't think the rebels would turn their backs on them as it would culminate in more infighting. Alqaeda is playing the long game, and that's the scary part. They are gaining more and more influence with each victory they are able to achieve in Syria.
PS: Many rebel factions were about to merge with Al-Nusra before the last big offensive in Aleppo but were pressured by both the americans and russians not to. https://now.mmedia.me/lb/en/commentaryanalysis/567363-why-did-jabhat-fatah-al-sham-fail-its-attempted-merger-with-syrian-rebels
|
On October 15 2016 06:22 zlefin wrote:Show nested quote +On October 15 2016 06:18 IgnE wrote:On October 15 2016 06:01 zlefin wrote:On October 15 2016 05:52 IgnE wrote:On October 15 2016 05:43 zlefin wrote:On October 15 2016 05:40 IgnE wrote:On October 15 2016 05:34 zlefin wrote:On October 15 2016 04:53 IgnE wrote:On October 15 2016 04:07 zlefin wrote:On October 15 2016 03:38 IgnE wrote:
[quote]
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-goit 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. so what happens when you raise taxes on persons that can pay more and reduce military spending? seems like you get pretty close to say $9k a year in UBI. you're talking about an awfully big tax increase. 9k/year per person, runs around 3 trillion total. So you'd need to raise revenue by some 1.75 trillion, or about 9% of gdp iirc. halving military spending would get you .3 trillion (and is obviously politically infeasible). so you'd still need 1.45 trillion; so a tax increase of say 7% on EVERYONE, with no exceptions or deductions reducing it. Or you'd run a tax increase of 10% on some people; which pushes the net brackets quite high, they're already high enough that diminishing returns effects hamper them. 7% tax on people making middle class income now is not that big a deal when they are getting $9k back in UBI. your vague assertions about diminishing returns are unconvincing i'm providing information for those who ask it. I'm not interested in people being needlessly argumentative. You're also not doing a full accounting about the money they'd be getting back, and the net changes to how various distributions would affect each group, and what the actual change in net distributions is. You're more than welcome to do a full look at the numbers if you're not satisfied with mine, and make your own vague claims about them; or do a full work-up of the feasibility of various approaches. im responding to your complete dismissal of the idea based on incomplete back of the envelope calculation. yeah i did'nt do a full accounting but i think ive established that its far more plausible than you make it out. its always rich to hear you call me argumentative while acting like an impartial arbiter just taking note of objective "facts". I provided my estimate of its feasibility. If I were in congress, I'd have given a far more thorough dismissal, but this is an internet gaming forum, so the standards are lower (despite evidence to the contrary). Just because the numbers can be reconciled doesn't mean it's anywhere near politically feasible; nor does it mean the net economic effect of such would be beneficial. You're free to do your own analysis and post it. I'd rather you disagree by bringing in more facts and analysis. And people can freely choose to believe my estimates or not. And I aim to spread the riches, so I'm glad you got rich by hearing me talk thus. the "politically feasible" argument is not only mostly irrelevant but feeds back into itself, as the discussion itself affects the public's estimation of its feasibility. it's a lazy argument that takes advantage of the fact that the future is contingent upon the present. so you bring up your doubts about its "net economic benefit" which, no doubt, has been your major objection all along, and is the center from which your productivist, liberal ideolofg radiates outward. i would just point to my previous discussikn about the benefits of worker bee pollination in a "knowledge economy" as the basis for what my argument would be for why i think UBI as part of more comprehensive reforms would be a net positive I disagree on the feasibility arguments. It's hard to push something without laying more groundwork. You're welcome to try campaigning on such a platform. Now you strawman me, and assume what my position is, rather than asking, which proves that you are arguing improperly and are not worth discussing with further. You're also using jargon I do not recognize, which makes some of that paragraph unintelligible.
im not strawmanning you, ive actually been arguing very narrowly: you claimed we arent rich enough to do it and i think thats bullshit.
in that respect feasibility and groundwork are obvious prerequisites that have no necessary relation to whether we are materially wealthy enough to implement a UBI.
|
On October 15 2016 06:26 IgnE wrote:Show nested quote +On October 15 2016 06:22 zlefin wrote:On October 15 2016 06:18 IgnE wrote:On October 15 2016 06:01 zlefin wrote:On October 15 2016 05:52 IgnE wrote:On October 15 2016 05:43 zlefin wrote:On October 15 2016 05:40 IgnE wrote:On October 15 2016 05:34 zlefin wrote:On October 15 2016 04:53 IgnE wrote:On October 15 2016 04:07 zlefin wrote:[quote] 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-goit 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. so what happens when you raise taxes on persons that can pay more and reduce military spending? seems like you get pretty close to say $9k a year in UBI. you're talking about an awfully big tax increase. 9k/year per person, runs around 3 trillion total. So you'd need to raise revenue by some 1.75 trillion, or about 9% of gdp iirc. halving military spending would get you .3 trillion (and is obviously politically infeasible). so you'd still need 1.45 trillion; so a tax increase of say 7% on EVERYONE, with no exceptions or deductions reducing it. Or you'd run a tax increase of 10% on some people; which pushes the net brackets quite high, they're already high enough that diminishing returns effects hamper them. 7% tax on people making middle class income now is not that big a deal when they are getting $9k back in UBI. your vague assertions about diminishing returns are unconvincing i'm providing information for those who ask it. I'm not interested in people being needlessly argumentative. You're also not doing a full accounting about the money they'd be getting back, and the net changes to how various distributions would affect each group, and what the actual change in net distributions is. You're more than welcome to do a full look at the numbers if you're not satisfied with mine, and make your own vague claims about them; or do a full work-up of the feasibility of various approaches. im responding to your complete dismissal of the idea based on incomplete back of the envelope calculation. yeah i did'nt do a full accounting but i think ive established that its far more plausible than you make it out. its always rich to hear you call me argumentative while acting like an impartial arbiter just taking note of objective "facts". I provided my estimate of its feasibility. If I were in congress, I'd have given a far more thorough dismissal, but this is an internet gaming forum, so the standards are lower (despite evidence to the contrary). Just because the numbers can be reconciled doesn't mean it's anywhere near politically feasible; nor does it mean the net economic effect of such would be beneficial. You're free to do your own analysis and post it. I'd rather you disagree by bringing in more facts and analysis. And people can freely choose to believe my estimates or not. And I aim to spread the riches, so I'm glad you got rich by hearing me talk thus. the "politically feasible" argument is not only mostly irrelevant but feeds back into itself, as the discussion itself affects the public's estimation of its feasibility. it's a lazy argument that takes advantage of the fact that the future is contingent upon the present. so you bring up your doubts about its "net economic benefit" which, no doubt, has been your major objection all along, and is the center from which your productivist, liberal ideolofg radiates outward. i would just point to my previous discussikn about the benefits of worker bee pollination in a "knowledge economy" as the basis for what my argument would be for why i think UBI as part of more comprehensive reforms would be a net positive I disagree on the feasibility arguments. It's hard to push something without laying more groundwork. You're welcome to try campaigning on such a platform. Now you strawman me, and assume what my position is, rather than asking, which proves that you are arguing improperly and are not worth discussing with further. You're also using jargon I do not recognize, which makes some of that paragraph unintelligible. im not strawmanning you, ive actually been arguing very narrowly: you claimed we arent rich enough to do it and i think thats bullshit. in that respect feasibility and groundwork are obvious prerequisites that have no necessary relation to whether we are materially wealthy enough to implement a UBI.
you said:
"so you bring up your doubts about its "net economic benefit" which, no doubt, has been your major objection all along, and is the center from which your productivist, liberal ideolofg radiates outward"
which looks like strawmanning to me.
|
On October 15 2016 06:22 Kickboxer wrote:
Farvacola you use long strings of big words but communicate little sound sense.
UBI is not conceptually designed as a social welfare service, although it does efficiently replace the need for those kinds of bloated and human-factor-operated mechanisms.
UBI at its core is "communism in practice" without any of the fascist bs, it merely ensures that every citizen of planet Earth receives some of his human inheritance in the form of resources necessary to avoid existential terror / ruin so they can participate on the free market as a sovereign player.
Not at all, the UBI is perfectly compatible with market logics or a liberal vision of capitalism.
|
On October 15 2016 06:29 zlefin wrote:Show nested quote +On October 15 2016 06:26 IgnE wrote:On October 15 2016 06:22 zlefin wrote:On October 15 2016 06:18 IgnE wrote:On October 15 2016 06:01 zlefin wrote:On October 15 2016 05:52 IgnE wrote:On October 15 2016 05:43 zlefin wrote:On October 15 2016 05:40 IgnE wrote:On October 15 2016 05:34 zlefin wrote:On October 15 2016 04:53 IgnE wrote:
[quote]
so what happens when you raise taxes on persons that can pay more and reduce military spending? seems like you get pretty close to say $9k a year in UBI.
you're talking about an awfully big tax increase. 9k/year per person, runs around 3 trillion total. So you'd need to raise revenue by some 1.75 trillion, or about 9% of gdp iirc. halving military spending would get you .3 trillion (and is obviously politically infeasible). so you'd still need 1.45 trillion; so a tax increase of say 7% on EVERYONE, with no exceptions or deductions reducing it. Or you'd run a tax increase of 10% on some people; which pushes the net brackets quite high, they're already high enough that diminishing returns effects hamper them. 7% tax on people making middle class income now is not that big a deal when they are getting $9k back in UBI. your vague assertions about diminishing returns are unconvincing i'm providing information for those who ask it. I'm not interested in people being needlessly argumentative. You're also not doing a full accounting about the money they'd be getting back, and the net changes to how various distributions would affect each group, and what the actual change in net distributions is. You're more than welcome to do a full look at the numbers if you're not satisfied with mine, and make your own vague claims about them; or do a full work-up of the feasibility of various approaches. im responding to your complete dismissal of the idea based on incomplete back of the envelope calculation. yeah i did'nt do a full accounting but i think ive established that its far more plausible than you make it out. its always rich to hear you call me argumentative while acting like an impartial arbiter just taking note of objective "facts". I provided my estimate of its feasibility. If I were in congress, I'd have given a far more thorough dismissal, but this is an internet gaming forum, so the standards are lower (despite evidence to the contrary). Just because the numbers can be reconciled doesn't mean it's anywhere near politically feasible; nor does it mean the net economic effect of such would be beneficial. You're free to do your own analysis and post it. I'd rather you disagree by bringing in more facts and analysis. And people can freely choose to believe my estimates or not. And I aim to spread the riches, so I'm glad you got rich by hearing me talk thus. the "politically feasible" argument is not only mostly irrelevant but feeds back into itself, as the discussion itself affects the public's estimation of its feasibility. it's a lazy argument that takes advantage of the fact that the future is contingent upon the present. so you bring up your doubts about its "net economic benefit" which, no doubt, has been your major objection all along, and is the center from which your productivist, liberal ideolofg radiates outward. i would just point to my previous discussikn about the benefits of worker bee pollination in a "knowledge economy" as the basis for what my argument would be for why i think UBI as part of more comprehensive reforms would be a net positive I disagree on the feasibility arguments. It's hard to push something without laying more groundwork. You're welcome to try campaigning on such a platform. Now you strawman me, and assume what my position is, rather than asking, which proves that you are arguing improperly and are not worth discussing with further. You're also using jargon I do not recognize, which makes some of that paragraph unintelligible. im not strawmanning you, ive actually been arguing very narrowly: you claimed we arent rich enough to do it and i think thats bullshit. in that respect feasibility and groundwork are obvious prerequisites that have no necessary relation to whether we are materially wealthy enough to implement a UBI. you said: "so you bring up your doubts about its "net economic benefit" which, no doubt, has been your major objection all along, and is the center from which your productivist, liberal ideolofg radiates outward" which looks like strawmanning to me.
are you serious? are you telling me that you think if it were politically feasible it would be a net economic benefit? that the only problem would be rejiggering the accounting?
or is your main objection, the one that underlines your entire dismissal of UBI as something only meant for a society w seven times the american per capita, that you don't think implementing a UBI by redistributing our current wealth away from the rich and to the poor would increase our economic growth? that we could only afford to give everyone a minimum income reasonable now if the rich had seven times as much as they currently do?
|
On October 15 2016 06:34 TheDwf wrote:Show nested quote +On October 15 2016 06:22 Kickboxer wrote:
Farvacola you use long strings of big words but communicate little sound sense.
UBI is not conceptually designed as a social welfare service, although it does efficiently replace the need for those kinds of bloated and human-factor-operated mechanisms.
UBI at its core is "communism in practice" without any of the fascist bs, it merely ensures that every citizen of planet Earth receives some of his human inheritance in the form of resources necessary to avoid existential terror / ruin so they can participate on the free market as a sovereign player. Not at all, the UBI is perfectly compatible with market logics or a liberal vision of capitalism.
How does a UBI survive your recipents are allowed to enter the program through immigration and funders are allowed to leave your jurisdiction shrinking the tax base? Do you allow recipients to spend their income on goods and services outside the jurisdiction? Are they allowed to travel outside the jurisdiction to consume somewhere else?
|
i've only been going on what you tell me zlefin. either the rich aren't rich enough to successfully subsidize the poor without hurting GDP or they are. you have argued quite explicitly that raising taxes to pay for it would hurt economic growth. you then again posted that you don't think that even if the "numbers could be reconciled" it likely wouldn't have a "net economic effect that was beneficial". if you think i'm strawmanning you then you should stop posting only straw.
edit: it is my position that we, as a society, are quite rich enough to implement a UBI. i am not, however, clamoring for doing away with public healthcare and replacing every single government service with a lump sum payment as soon as possible.
|
It's been a really rough day for Trump surrogates. Carson had his meltdown this morning and some of the female cheerleaders seem to be backing out. Dana Perino seems pretty pissed ("After 20 years of defending these guys... done"). It seems like a lot of the women in the GOP are starting to be more public about flat out disliking Trump.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
