|
|
|||
| forums: groups: | |||
|
"Universal Basic Income: good idea or bad idea?"
Love you, too
Nein said:
Not how burden of proof works. If somebody just says a thing without evidence, I get to criticize what they say as lacking in evidence.
Not how burden of proof works. If somebody just says a thing without evidence, I get to criticize what they say as lacking in evidence.
if you criticize based on a lack of citation, and then make comments without citation of your own, that's called being a hypocrite. You may certainly make the argument that you'd like to see some kind of citation for the comments that have been made, but then when you make comments of your own without citation...it's like if you said "don't poke yourself in the eye" and then proceed to poke yourself in your own eye... you've just done the exact thing your are criticizing.
I thought "burden of proof" was a concept that applied to judicial process?
...i will have a better signature, eventually!
ncgreg231lc2 said:
if you criticize based on a lack of citation, and then make comments without citation of your own, that's called being a hypocrite...
I thought "burden of proof" was a concept that applied to judicial process?
if you criticize based on a lack of citation, and then make comments without citation of your own, that's called being a hypocrite...
I thought "burden of proof" was a concept that applied to judicial process?
The fact that you mistakenly think it only applies in law and not in conversation explains why you would see hypocricy: you didn't even try to look it up to understand what it means. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burden_of_proof_(philosophy)
It is true that I made some positive statements above as reasons for doubt. I didn't source them because I was waiting for the original burden of proof to be discharged. If I had jumped right to it, then it would be a one-sided conversation, where the critic has to do all the legwork while the ranter gets to jump from one random half-baked assertion to another like a bedbug. Even with that said, VegasWAM filled in the gaps before Ed made his argument.
Backing up a minute. There's this sense that you right-wing guys have that everything is just a bull session, that every conversation is yakking it up. On a lot of topics that's true -- sports, or movies, and other stuff, it's all jokes and teasing and verbal sparring. But when it comes to topics of public interest, matters of life and death, it isn't a bull session. You have to put in at least a tiny bit of effort to indicate you give a damn. Like, hit up Snopes, Wikipedia, or even just Google search before you commit to defending something.
EdwinR said:
You still haven't answered the question. If everyone gets $18k per year as you say, how much money is needed to give every person who is eligible to collect per yr? Heres where you do the math; The current population in the US as of 2020 is 331.5 million. 22% are under the age of 18. That leaves an estimated 258.6 million eligible Americans (based on age). For every eligible American to receive their $18k/yr, you need 4.6548 trillion US $ per year! Where does the money come from?
You're making my point. If a govt entitlement creates a disincentive to work, say over 20hrs in this case, the net results are still the same! Your friend ends up with no incentive to work (or work more) because they don't want to lose money. It's the same thing...or rather, the same results. There is another option thats often never mentioned and that is another kind of incentive. The incentive to do better. There are numerous examples of people who existed in utter poverty, who managed thru hard work and many hrs of education to improve their circumstances, and were successful. Examples of people who didn't settle for the meager govt dole and became millionaires. But for many people, it's hard to defeat the entitlement mentality. For them, it's easier to just take the money and continue to exist in the limits given them. They make excuses as to who or why they can't succeed. They never take advantage of the opportunities available in this country.
No it's not. It's a smart move.
That would also apply to taxes. You can manipulate behavior by taxes. Increase taxation and people do everything they can to avoid it or escape it. Millionaires move, so do the lower classes. Currently California and NY are the two states with the highest taxes in the country. It's no coincidence that both California and NY are experiencing depopulation, and it's not just the millionaires!
They are crossing that bridge now, namely the GW bridge in NY, on their way out
It's absolutely true. You can't take money from someone and tell them they are making more money. Just as you can't just give people $18K per year without taking the money out of the economy, from somewhere else.
So is that acceptable to you?? There are also several countries that are economic disasters. I mentioned Venezuela for one. Ever seen what happens to a country that experiences hyperinflation??
Therein lies the rub. For all the micromanaging of programs of good intent, the planners don't have a plan for what people do with their money. At some point, they may force you to behave in the manner which they expect, and when that happens their titles will not be president or prime minister. They will go by titles like Dictator, Fuhrer, etc.
EdR
piboiva said:
Former US Presidential Candidate proposed a UBI of 1500 per month.
That's 18k per year
Federal Minimum Wage is 7.25 per hour. Full time minimum wage grosses 15080 a year.
Former US Presidential Candidate proposed a UBI of 1500 per month.
That's 18k per year
Federal Minimum Wage is 7.25 per hour. Full time minimum wage grosses 15080 a year.
You still haven't answered the question. If everyone gets $18k per year as you say, how much money is needed to give every person who is eligible to collect per yr? Heres where you do the math; The current population in the US as of 2020 is 331.5 million. 22% are under the age of 18. That leaves an estimated 258.6 million eligible Americans (based on age). For every eligible American to receive their $18k/yr, you need 4.6548 trillion US $ per year! Where does the money come from?
If you're gonna argue from anecdote, then so am I. I know someone employed, on food stamps, who worries about going over 20 hours at McDonalds because if they go over, they could lose a greater amount in their food stamps than they could reliably make at McDonalds. However, the majority of people on food stamps do work.
And a lack of incentive is not the same as a disinsentive. A lack of incentive means one neither gets positive or negative reinforcement for an action. A disinsentive means one gets negative reinforcement for an action.
And a lack of incentive is not the same as a disinsentive. A lack of incentive means one neither gets positive or negative reinforcement for an action. A disinsentive means one gets negative reinforcement for an action.
You're making my point. If a govt entitlement creates a disincentive to work, say over 20hrs in this case, the net results are still the same! Your friend ends up with no incentive to work (or work more) because they don't want to lose money. It's the same thing...or rather, the same results. There is another option thats often never mentioned and that is another kind of incentive. The incentive to do better. There are numerous examples of people who existed in utter poverty, who managed thru hard work and many hrs of education to improve their circumstances, and were successful. Examples of people who didn't settle for the meager govt dole and became millionaires. But for many people, it's hard to defeat the entitlement mentality. For them, it's easier to just take the money and continue to exist in the limits given them. They make excuses as to who or why they can't succeed. They never take advantage of the opportunities available in this country.
As for the threat of rich people moving out of the country, that is an abuse tactic.
No it's not. It's a smart move.
there's one important rule of economics you're missing - when the environment changes, the behavior changes. Meaning a country would function differently after the multibillionaires left than before.
That would also apply to taxes. You can manipulate behavior by taxes. Increase taxation and people do everything they can to avoid it or escape it. Millionaires move, so do the lower classes. Currently California and NY are the two states with the highest taxes in the country. It's no coincidence that both California and NY are experiencing depopulation, and it's not just the millionaires!
Personally, I take the view, Put up or Shut up. If such a scenario occurs, then we will cross that bridge when we get there.
They are crossing that bridge now, namely the GW bridge in NY, on their way out
"You can't tax your way into prosperity" is Thatcher line. The problem is, it's wrong.
It's absolutely true. You can't take money from someone and tell them they are making more money. Just as you can't just give people $18K per year without taking the money out of the economy, from somewhere else.
There are several countries which have high taxes and high costs of living, but they also have strong government assistance programs. That's the kicker, though. The money has to circulate, and it can't do that if it's being stuffed into a matress.
So is that acceptable to you?? There are also several countries that are economic disasters. I mentioned Venezuela for one. Ever seen what happens to a country that experiences hyperinflation??
Therein lies the rub. For all the micromanaging of programs of good intent, the planners don't have a plan for what people do with their money. At some point, they may force you to behave in the manner which they expect, and when that happens their titles will not be president or prime minister. They will go by titles like Dictator, Fuhrer, etc.
EdR
Before you toss around Venezuela as an example, you might want to do bit more research than the headlines.
Here, let me give you two resources that show the difference between someone who taxed their way to prosperity and someone who didn't:
https://youtu.be/7_mThYXDr_s
This explains what Venezuela did wrong
https://youtu.be/hKGwGAHznFQ
This explains what Norway did right.
Content Warning: Keynesian Economics
And until you figure out the difference between no incentive and disincentive, we literally cannot continue.
And because you seem to forget a lot of information, please go back and read the explanation of the multiplier effect. Because of the multiplier effect, you don't need nearly as much, because as people spend the money the expenses are recouped. That's the whole point of an investment - to make back the money you spent.
Dr. of Splatterology
piboiva said:
My retort to your videos
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gXTvFoOlH0Y
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WCUq0V-3mgo
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CCIdm3cM6zQ
What you missed in your economics class is for socialists to make socialism work, they have to include free market capitalism. Even if we were to take your two video examples as correct and accurate, Venezuela failed because it couldn't incorporate free market capitalism to inject outside money into the country. It had plenty of oil it could have used, but it didn't. If Norway is a perfect economy under socialism, it does so by propping it up with capitalism. We see this with China too. China has managed to finance socialist programs with money from the rest of the word thru cheap products made by slave labor. Remove capitalism from socialist societies, and you get Cuba or Venezuela. But remove socialism from capitalist societies and you end up with a thriving nation.
Going back to the UBI, no amount of multiplier effect will improve an economy that you have to borrow against. You have to take the money from the economy to put it back into the economy. Does this make sense? Go to the bank and take out a loan for a thousand dollars. Are you now a thousand dollars richer??
EdR
Everything's better when wet…
EdwinR said:
What you missed in your economics class is for socialists to make socialism work, they have to include free market capitalism.
What you missed in your economics class is for socialists to make socialism work, they have to include free market capitalism.
Yes, hence lots of people advocate market socialism. UBI proposals are consistent with that vision. Then again, it's also consistent with lots of right-wing and even libertarian views. Milton Friedman endorsed a version of it.
You're arguing against something that everybody likes. To paraphrase Vonnegut, it's like watching a guy dressed in a suit of armor attack a vanilla sundae.
EdwinR said:
My retort to your videos
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gXTvFoOlH0Y
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WCUq0V-3mgo
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CCIdm3cM6zQ
What you missed in your economics class is for socialists to make socialism work, they have to include free market capitalism. Even if we were to take your two video examples as correct and accurate, Venezuela failed because it couldn't incorporate free market capitalism to inject outside money into the country. It had plenty of oil it could have used, but it didn't. If Norway is a perfect economy under socialism, it does so by propping it up with capitalism. We see this with China too. China has managed to finance socialist programs with money from the rest of the word thru cheap products made by slave labor. Remove capitalism from socialist societies, and you get Cuba or Venezuela. But remove socialism from capitalist societies and you end up with a thriving nation.
Going back to the UBI, no amount of multiplier effect will improve an economy that you have to borrow against. You have to take the money from the economy to put it back into the economy. Does this make sense? Go to the bank and take out a loan for a thousand dollars. Are you now a thousand dollars richer??
EdR
piboiva said:
My retort to your videos
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gXTvFoOlH0Y
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WCUq0V-3mgo
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CCIdm3cM6zQ
What you missed in your economics class is for socialists to make socialism work, they have to include free market capitalism. Even if we were to take your two video examples as correct and accurate, Venezuela failed because it couldn't incorporate free market capitalism to inject outside money into the country. It had plenty of oil it could have used, but it didn't. If Norway is a perfect economy under socialism, it does so by propping it up with capitalism. We see this with China too. China has managed to finance socialist programs with money from the rest of the word thru cheap products made by slave labor. Remove capitalism from socialist societies, and you get Cuba or Venezuela. But remove socialism from capitalist societies and you end up with a thriving nation.
Going back to the UBI, no amount of multiplier effect will improve an economy that you have to borrow against. You have to take the money from the economy to put it back into the economy. Does this make sense? Go to the bank and take out a loan for a thousand dollars. Are you now a thousand dollars richer??
EdR
STRAWMAN ALERT!
Ain't nobody said no nothing about removing capitalism in this conversation.
I actually follow full-blown leftist, and they really do discuss ending capitalism. But they never follow that up with how this post-capitalism world works - as in real economics. And on the few occassions they do try to state economic facts, they are wrong.
Using PragerU to acquire knowledge is like trying to find meaning in a Paulie Shore movie. They have been debunked so many times, because they use fictitious data, pass marketing research off as scientific research (they aren't the same) and when they cite real studies, they claim the studies state the exact opposite of what the study actually says.
But, that is not important right now. Because you have shown yourself so ill-informed, and either unwilling or unable to hold more than one thought in your head at time, that's it's really not worth continuing this discussion.
So, peace out!
Dr. of Splatterology
piboiva said:
I actually follow full-blown leftist, and they really do discuss ending capitalism. But they never follow that up with how this post-capitalism world works - as in real economics. And on the few occassions they do try to state economic facts, they are wrong.
I actually follow full-blown leftist, and they really do discuss ending capitalism. But they never follow that up with how this post-capitalism world works - as in real economics. And on the few occassions they do try to state economic facts, they are wrong.
Modern monetary theorists disagree. They're controversial, pretty far from the mainstream, but they're also reasonably serious. Their strongest argument is that the right-wing spends on the military shamelessly without any regard for deficits, and they use that as an intuition-pump to ask: what if deficits really don't matter?
I'm not saying I believe this. I'm not competent to have an opinion on that specific matter. But I do think there's something pretty mysterious about how reliably extravagant right-wing Republicans are when it comes to military spending, and the fact that they get away with it without any real consequences ought to at least attract attention and explanation.
piboiva said:
STRAWMAN ALERT!
Ain't nobody said no nothing about removing capitalism in this conversation.
STRAWMAN ALERT!
Ain't nobody said no nothing about removing capitalism in this conversation.
Strawman? Aren't you the one who linked to two videos where the announcer admits to being socialists??
And you are right, ain't no one said nothing about removing capitalism. I know I didn't say it, What I did say was socialism can't seem to work without capitalism, another words a means to keep pumping in fresh money from outside to an otherwise expensive and failed system that isn't self sustaining on it's own. (Which is quite funny when you listen to leftists complain about the inequities of capitalism)
I actually follow full-blown leftist, and they really do discuss ending capitalism. But they never follow that up with how this post-capitalism world works - as in real economics. And on the few occassions they do try to state economic facts, they are wrong.
Because it doesn't work. They either end up with Venezuela, where the entire system collapses or they have to prop up socialism with capitalism, such as the Norway example. Unfortunately in the Norway example, they are using the oil funds to prop up their economy and full blown leftists, like the ones you follow, want to end oil drilling based on their climate change beliefs....and if that happens, Norway's means to sustain their socialist policies will collapse and result in a Venezuela style economic failure.
Using PragerU to acquire knowledge is like trying to find meaning in a Paulie Shore movie. They have been debunked so many times, because they use fictitious data, pass marketing research off as scientific research (they aren't the same) and when they cite real studies, they claim the studies state the exact opposite of what the study actually says.
Saying they have been debunked doesn't mean you have debunked the videos I linked to. Are you going to tell us that those Venezuelan people who are starving under socialism are liers?? Or Hugo Chavez, or Nicolas Maduro are heros??
But, that is not important right now. Because you have shown yourself so ill-informed, and either unwilling or unable to hold more than one thought in your head at time, that's it's really not worth continuing this discussion.
So, peace out!
So, peace out!
Buh bye!
EdR
Everything's better when wet…
Sponsors
Design & Code ©1998-2025 Loverbuns, LLC 18 U.S.C. 2257 Record-Keeping Requirements Compliance Statement
Epoch Billing Support Log In