Board 8 > Freedom, Liberty, Ron Paul - Now I ain't sayin' he's gone alt-right... [dwmf]

(+) Yeah! (+)

HotDogButts posted...

how are we gonna pay for basic income when we can't even keep social security going ?

Stop wars, easy
---

SmartMuffin posted...

lulz, shes about to make so much money going somewhere else

vine 2 queen
---

foolm0r0n posted...

HotDogButts posted...

how are we gonna pay for basic income when we can't even keep social security going ?

Stop wars, easy

Not nearly enough. The amount of money it would take to provide a basic income that would actually satisfy the left is staggering. It would have to be enough such that everyone could live at a comfortable middle class level in the location of their own choosing. On average, probably has to be at least 50k per person per year.

And it would have to continually escalate a lot, because as new things are invented and they suddenly start becoming "basic human rights" 50k a year won't seem like middle class anymore, as the rich will continue to innovate and create value and grow wealthier. So after a few years, once all the BI people feel poor again, you'll have to raise it to 80k or something. And that will continue indefinitely.
---

solution: pay for UBI with rich people's wealth so they can't innovate or create value or grow wealthier. problem solved.
---

can't innovate or create value or grow wealthier

the most honest depiction of what socialists actually want that I've ever seen
---

Kenri posted...

solution: pay for UBI with rich people's wealth so they can't innovate or create value or grow wealthier. problem solved.

Is this satire?
---

no i just hate innovation

(yes)
---

Kenri posted...

no i just hate innovation

(yes)

i mean, muffin just claimed that's seriously your (and my) opinion >_>
---

SmartMuffin posted...

that would actually satisfy the left

Stop caring so god damn much about this and letting it rule your entire life

If we still cared about this then obviously wars wouldn't be over, and the point is moot
---

SmartMuffin posted...

And it would have to continually escalate a lot, because as new things are invented and they suddenly start becoming "basic human rights" 50k a year won't seem like middle class anymore, as the rich will continue to innovate and create value and grow wealthier. So after a few years, once all the BI people feel poor again, you'll have to raise it to 80k or something. And that will continue indefinitely.

This is fine though. It's what capitalism is made for. That being said it has to be done sustainably and allow for downturns and such, unlike keynesianism.
---

This is fine though. It's what capitalism is made for. That being said it has to be done sustainably and allow for downturns and such, unlike keynesianism.

It'll be a harder sell each time though. Right now, a whole lot of claims about the need for re-distribution are commie and SJW stuff about the legacy of oppression and the unfairness of inheritance or whatever. That we need re-distribution to correct injustices of the distant past.

Well, let's say we do that. We institute a super high UBI that everyone gets and for some time, everyone feels reasonably happy and prosperous.

But then, years or decades later, suddenly that's not the case anymore. The people who spent their UBI solely on consumption and stopped contributing to society feel super poor again, because the people who invested their UBI and continued to work hard and engage in productive labor got a lot richer and can suddenly afford new luxuries that didn't even exist before.

It'll be a lot harder to blame that inequality on "the legacy of slavery" or whatever. It will be painfully obvious to everyone who used their UBI to do productive things, and who used it on strippers and coke. And the people who used it well will be even less inclined than they already are to listen to the whining of the unproductive class.

The argument of "I'm poor because my ancestors were oppressed" is at least somewhat plausible. But the more re-distribution you do, the less plausible it becomes.
---

SmartMuffin posted...

Well, let's say we do that.

You've lost already then. The policy is reactive to society (likely a small loud portion of it), which makes it vulnerable to the next small loud group and the next.

This is why socially reactionary "ideologies" like traditionalism and nationalism (and even examples like $15 min wage movement and gun control movement) are so weak and temporary and hijackable. They become totally unrecognizable 1, 5, 20 years later, because there is no actual ideology, just reaction. They cause a ton of damage then disappear.

That's the big difference with austrian economics. It's not about the resulting policies necessarily, but the process of reaching those policies by establishing clear axioms and scientifically building off from that. The policies can be wrong and they can change but it's not because of the latest fad, it's because of new research and data.

And UBI can totally be implemented in that way. We can recognize that poverty and taxes will always exist in a society, and implement UBI as a way to solve both those problems in a simple and transparent and market-boosting way. People can argue for it to go up or down from there for whatever reason, but that core will be there forever and doesn't need to be re-sold (only defended).

It's like a constitutional amendment (which is how a UBI would ideally be implemented). In the 1700s the 4th amendment was to stop soldiers from ransacking your house, and today it's to stop the FBI from hacking your phone camera. Ultimately the details are all dependent on society's whims, but the core of the policy can and should be a rock solid guidepost.
---

foolm0r0n posted...

We can recognize that poverty and taxes will always exist in a society, and implement UBI as a way to solve both those problems in a simple and transparent and market-boosting way.

i don't get this. if you see taxes as a problem, how is it "solved" by UBI?
---

Because it's a really simple and transparent and market-boosting way to use taxes
---

You've lost already then. The policy is reactive to society (likely a small loud portion of it), which makes it vulnerable to the next small loud group and the next.

Literally every government policy is this.
---

Oh I know. That's why government always lags behind society.

BUT you can harden a policy (like a rock guidepost like I mentioned) if you recognize the societal impulses that caused the policy, but then actively try to remove the contemporary biases and vulnerabilities. This is exactly how the Constitution came about.
---

BUT you can harden a policy (like a rock guidepost like I mentioned) if you recognize the societal impulses that caused the policy, but then actively try to remove the contemporary biases and vulnerabilities. This is exactly how the Constitution came about.

Except for when people don't like what the constitution says and everyone in power just agrees to ignore it.
---

Sure but it's blatantly illegal. That's the value of the document. It's just a piece of paper, it's not gonna stop anyone from actually committing any acts. But it enables society to call out blatant illegal action.

The other thing is the document supposedly gives the politicians their power. So the politicians are stuck in this constant tricky balance between citing and dismissing the document. Obviously some are quite good at playing that game, but it takes a ton of energy and money for them to do it successfully. While we can just sit back and call them out for free.
---

While we can just sit back and call them out for free.

Except that literally nobody cares.

SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED much?
---

Don't project yourself on others. Even so, it would be really easy for you to switch back to libertarianism from nationalism, and then that statement wouldn't be true anymore.
---

Fuckin Drumpf nearly made me miss my flight. My trip from downtown Dallas to the airport that normally takes 20 minutes instead took 50, because he was having some fundraiser literally across the street from where I was working.
---

https://www.foxbusiness.com/markets/president-trumps-net-worth-declined-100m-in-past-year-report

if Trump so establishment, how he gonna be the first President in US history to leave the white house poorer than when he entered it
---

He's the most keynesian of all, spending his own money to trigger a stimulus (at least in the golf industry)
---

Good guy Trump making those big personal sacrifices for the good of America. Good, good. So good.
---

SmartMuffin posted...

if Trump so establishment, how he gonna be the first President in US history to leave the white house poorer than when he entered it

checkmate, people who think trump is not an anti-establishment anarchist hero!
---

https://i.kinja-img.com/gawker-media/image/upload/s--1YBn69re--/c_scale,f_auto,fl_progressive,q_80,w_800/swq1nocy6161qzotqx8i.jpg

if trump is so establishment, why would he wear these ridiculous transparant white shorts?

would obama wear these shorts while playing a tennis match? I THINK NOT
---

https://finance.yahoo.com/news/us-jobs-report-may-2018-120406400.html

The labor force participation rate, which has remained stubbornly low since the financial crisis, hit 62.7% in May, a 0.1% decrease from the prior month.

Spoiler: If unemployment AND labor force participation both fall, all it means is more people are deciding to live off government assistance rather than bothering to find a job
---

SmartMuffin posted...

Spoiler: If unemployment AND labor force participation both fall, all it means is more people are deciding to live off government assistance rather than bothering to find a job

or they are trying but they aren't getting hired anywhere.
---

or they are trying but they aren't getting hired anywhere.

No, that's what unemployment measures.

So if the number of people who are "trying but not finding" goes down, AND the number of people who aren't working at all goes up, it means fewer people are trying.
---

"unemployed people" are just people who are trying but not finding? then what do you call people who don't have a job and aren't trying to find one? "people without a job"?
---

SmartMuffin posted...

or they are trying but they aren't getting hired anywhere.

No, that's what unemployment measures.

Unemployment only lasts a limited time.
---

Mr Lasastryke posted...

"unemployed people" are just people who are trying but not finding? then what do you call people who don't have a job and aren't trying to find one? "people without a job"?

No. "Unemployed people" are those who are actually receiving unemployment benefits. If they aren't receiving them, regardless of the reason, they aren't counted in that statistic.
---

No. "Unemployed people" are those who are actually receiving unemployment benefits. If they aren't receiving them, regardless of the reason, they aren't counted in that statistic.

In order to get benefits, you have to claim you are looking for work.

then what do you call people who don't have a job and aren't trying to find one? "people without a job"?

Non-labor force participants. So, the 37.3% of people who aren't participating. And among those, only 3% or so are actively receiving benefits (meaning, looking for a job). So basically, 34% of the population doesn't have a job, and isn't actively looking for one. Or even bothering to lie about looking for one.
---

https://www.nbcnews.com/news/all/my-heart-just-dropped-4-verdict-shocks-family-man-killed-n879026

black man shot by police

compensation: about tree-fiddy
---

SmartMuffin posted...

In order to get benefits, you have to claim you are looking for work.

The point is that if your benefits run out, you are dropped from that statistic, even if you are still looking for work.
---

Don't the benefits last basically two years?

I have to believe the amount of people who literally cannot find ANY job after two years is close to zero.
---

SmartMuffin posted...

Don't the benefits last basically two years?

I have to believe the amount of people who literally cannot find ANY job after two years is close to zero.

Jesus Christ no. Try 26 weeks.
---

What about the whole "99ers" thing that was a big deal under Obama? I thought the whole point was that they lasted 99 weeks and still everyone was crying that it needed to be a lot longer?
---

Last time I got unemployment I only qualified for 13 weeks.
---

SmartMuffin posted...

What about the whole "99ers" thing that was a big deal under Obama? I thought the whole point was that they lasted 99 weeks and still everyone was crying that it needed to be a lot longer?

You got duped by mass media
---

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-44329488

#FBto0
---

lol, this is literally a news article?

don't need to read a study to know that facebook is for old people like me and teens prefer instagram.
---

You should invest in Instagram instead
---

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DeovgwVWsAEeuLJ?format=jpg&name=large
---

uppo
---

https://www.facebook.com/WUSA9/videos/vb.91515504777/10157557169589778

My city is more libertarian than yours
---

It wasn't you?

Disappointing AF
---

I would never join the military lmao
---

it was a military guy?

thats lame

I was hoping some badass broke into the base to liberate it
---

Yeah the details make it a lot less weird than it sounds
---