Basic Income: A Global History

[@HillbillyHippyOG]

Once we recognize that the right to life necessarily includes the right to the resources necessary to maintain life, we will be able to stabilize the economy as a healthy toroidal system, AND we will end the psychological trauma created by the old system which labeled so many as worthless. ✌🏼

[@dannywindham3295]

The federal job guarantee is a much better idea than basic income.

[@Recuper8]

Study AI's trajectory and then say that.

[@woodspriteful]

I disagree because we need to be promoting self employment, education, and investment in people for an evolving humanity. People need their time. Transferring their time to another task doesn't return the power of vision and manifestation to the people. It doesn't help people who are experiencing temporary health problems that don't qualify for disability or caregivers who have to step out of some employer's imposed schedule and work culture to meet their family's needs.

[@dannywindham3295]

@@woodspriteful The federal job guarantee is not working for the man. The FJG is about creating socially useful work. It is not a for profit work program

[@woodspriteful]

@@dannywindham3295 That's great. The CCC did really good work and young people, especially during recessions, would have benefitted from a program like that. But it doesn't address the other issues I raised related to caregivers and people experiencing illness not being able to participate in the workforce.

[@dannywindham3295]

For people experiencing illness and caregivers We should expand social security to accommodate those folks. There is no reason why that couldn't happen Social security is not going broke it will never go broke it's impossible. We should and can take care of everyone there is no good reason why people should be homeless.

[@user-eh9jo9ep5r]

Poverty could be reduced if UBI will be powered by business education and comfortable business environment

[@Recuper8]

This comment section is full of people who do not understand AI's trajectory. Get current people!

[@woodspriteful]

Instead of negatively judging the commentators, why don't you provide a summary of AI's trajectory and how it informs your response to this video?

[@thomasbentele2468]

Its the wrong end, to put money into the economy. Only if the newly created money wents into the productive real economy, one can increase the supply of goods in the same moment. Then newly created money meets newly created goods an we see growth without price inflation. With basic income, prices of goods go up, the producers try to get the credits to increase the production, with time, more products comes into the market, while basic income had to been risen and prices once more therefor have to be risen.

[@screenarts]

Capitlist will never allow a ubi. Poverty and homelessness are required to make workers accept and unlivable wage offered. Poverty, starvation, homelessness is a threat, if you won't take the offered wage.

[@rcmrcm3370]

They'll see it as a subsidy to industry gotten of the middle class.

[@rcmrcm3370]

The trick is to keep the amount insufficient to live off of.

[@HillbillyHippyOG]

Their hierarchical system of human value will be discarded just as slavery was discarded once the narrative is exposed as a sham. ✌🏼

[@SolidAir54321]

But what I'm hearing from this video is that UBI could actually benefit the capitalists. It's taking welfare and privatizing it. Instead of giving people essentials, you give them money and let them buy the essentials they want from private companies. Then the companies make a profit from that. Since the money to support UBI comes from the taxes that everyone pays, it's another way to have money funneled up to the rich owners.

[@TheCensus]

Lol it’s like you’re the only person who actually listened to what he was saying

[@Nine-Signs]

Why Basic income must never be allowed to come to pass under capitalism. 1. It massively increases consumption of resources on a world where we are already 3 decades past sustainable limits. 2. All it does is temporarily alleviate poverty while putting even more masses of cash into the hands of the top 1% who own all the corporations that produce everything needed for life. It is in effect a mass transfere via the spending of citizens unto the pockets of the wealthy, no different to today under capitalism, just with gusto and then some if you employ Basic income under this top down anti democratic systemically unstable socioeconomic belief system that is in complete contradiction and defiance of the immutable physics governing a finite world. There are solutions, but not under capitalism. No matter how many solar panels, wind turbines, electric cars, basic incomes, green growth agendas, are thrown at it, capitalism will remain the road to failure and death for our species and this is mathematically proven and certain. The only way it could not be so would be if personal beliefs stopped tides by altering the laws of physics accordingly. We can have capitalism, or a viable future on this earth, not both simultaneously.

[@Nine-Signs]

@@NaesGalaxy while I understand the good intentions and the belief many have in the solution being a restrained regulated capitalism, the problem with that is capitalism incentivises its own deregulation and removal of restraints over time as any impediment to a companies internal profit making is lobbied against until it is watered down and/or removed entirely no matter the external cost to democracy, society, and planet, as capitalism incentivises be done and rewards the doing of. It demands a 3%global GDP growth rate to stave off its collapse. Too long under that and return on investments miss expectations, market sentiment sour, and recessions or worse do come. That 3% may not sound like much but it = a doubling in consumption of energy and materials every 33yrs for the life of this system post 1750 and this is why we added 750 billion tons of carbon to the earth's systems between 1750 and 1980, then doubled that to 1.5 trillion tons in just 40yrs to 2020 and even with our piss ant renewables are on course to double it to 3 trillion tons by 2060 along with a forecasted tripling in global plastics production. Any restraints introduced into capitalism will be undone by the capitalist minority via the masses of wealth they extra t for no work, from the working majority below. This is what capitalism incentivises be done, there is no road to a better capitalism my friend, we've been trying to find one for 400 years across this earth and all have failed miserably. Asking again for a restrained better capitalism is simply asking to repeat history while expecting a different result, at a point in history when humanity no longer has the time to waste on such.

[@ivandate9972]

basic income ..inflation inside the nation, will make no private sector can sell anything outside

[@ernestmwape]

Pure free market Capitalism is in ICU. With small subsidies for the poor (to avoid social unrest) and huge amounts of free money for the rich it is unsustainable. Jeff Bezos fought so hard not to workers' union, a small financial crisis leads to transfering huge sums of money to the rich (quantitative easing🤷‍♂️😓) who pay subsistence wages to their workers. Homelessness in USA for example is such a political racket

[@tiagodias2225]

The question nobody asks is “WHERE IS THE MONEY COMING FROM?!?!?!” Money flow from country to country in seconds. It looks like it will be Monopoly money to me.

[@christinepereira7622]

Money, or rather: fiat currencies come from central banks, it is literally created from thin air through debt. When any one of us borrows money from the bank to say, buy a house for example, the bank creates currency digitally and deposits it into your bank account. When you repay the mortgage increments with actual money, the corresponding digital debt gets destroyed and the bank gets free money. Banks love debt because it makes them rich for no reason at all. I used to think that the money we deposit in our bank accounts then gets used for borrowing, till I decided to research fiat currencies. It's all made up, a few centuries ago this would have been called: magic, alchemy, witchcraft. Now it's called "Financial Products"

[@TheMohawkNinja]

The problem with basic income is that it works if and only if the state can be trusted as a benign entity. If the state is not trusted, then basic income is simply a means for the state to gain absolute direct control over an individual's life. Given the state is not considered a trustworthy entity, basic income cannot therefore be viewed as a good option for the people, but rather a means of authoritarian control.

[@woodspriteful]

A weak state makes authoritarianism more likely because there is no good alternative to the state. The problem of trust exists because the state provides so little to the people. The state has not regulated markets enough and that is why the people have suffered. Ignorant voters go for the authoritarians as a result.

[@TheMohawkNinja]

@@woodspriteful True to an extent. There is no true "good" solution, so of course if one is weaker than the other, the system will attempt to self-correct (just as an authoritarian regime will inevitably fall into civil war with demands for a free market by the people). I disagree about the trust issue though. Look at the current RESTRICT act being talked about in the news. It is a bill aimed at increasing the powers of the state, yet many people have reacted negatively to this increase in state power due to a lack of trust in the state and therefore the belief that the power granted to the bill will be used maliciously. Trust can be eroded by a lack of power from the state (see Great Depression), but in our modern day, I would argue that the lack of trust is from a perceived over-stepping of the state. You are correct that ignorance will lead to authoritarianism though. It is easy to see with the rise of Postmodernism and its' descendant political philosophies (e.g. Social Justice) that people prefer grasping at the simple and all-encompassing answer that leads to state control rather than acknowledging the nuance of the situation and being more hesitant towards state control.

[@woodspriteful]

@@TheMohawkNinja I'm with Marianne Williamson when she says that the Republicans are heading toward authoritarianism and the Democrats are headed toward a slow but steady collapse. It's time to acknowledge the state we're in. Transformation and evolution is the only sustainable option. We might not make it economically or politically. I don't watch the news more I meditate. A significant percentage of the population has evolved but it doesn't take many to drag a country down. There is no shared trust in times like these. People gotta get out of their heads and into their hearts. Let go.

[@woodspriteful]

@@ThomasVWorm Currency existed before states. Banks had their own currency as did certain companies before the US government ever did. The purpose of government getting involved wasn't to control people, but to standardize exchanges. The purpose of economies is and has always been a way to control people's behavior around access to resources. So, you seem confused between the economy and government. Taxes existed before states, and it's less helpful to talk about the purpose than it is to simply say that those in power took a share of the wealth that others created. Those who created no wealth (via agriculture) were slaves who provided services. These shares were taken because they could be taken through power and sometimes the addition of a divine claim. In the modern world, taxes are paid to maintain complex systems. The social contract seems weak. We question the value of what we recieve in return.

[@ajpend]

@@woodspriteful you’re a very good thinker. What is the training that you have?

[@thomasd2444]

30 minutes ago

[@PoliticalEconomy101]

A UBI is indefensible period.

[@MrBrindleStyle]

Obviously not - people ARE DOING IT.

[@PoliticalEconomy101]

Redistribution is not defensible and its immoral.

[@christophsorg]

True. Means of production need to be socialized. Mere redistribution gives capitalists the misguided idea that the value produced by others is theirs to begin with.

[@thomasd2444]

Breathe We now know how to ensure each person is a HAVE without any Robin-Hood-Taking from any HAVE

[@thomasd2444]

@@christophsorg - Not sure what you mean by writing: "Means of production need to be socialized." The world has chosen For-Money-Profit firms with workers who direct their own operation. If you mean our elected self-government may hire these F-M-P firms then I follow

[@woodspriteful]

Sounds like you assume the game was fair. It didn't even include all human voices let alone the voices of the more than human world that sustains life beyond the timeline of any human construction, whether it be a nation or particular economy. Redistribution is the only sustainable option but needs to be paired with restructuring where human property is not as sacred as the fact that our human systems need to be embedded within environmental reality and natural law. Of course those who have think they earned that which the human made system provided while the earth was never compensated. The system perpetuates itself and becomes more unfair over time. There is so much wasted talent and where there should be talent is mere privilege. Those who have never give gratitude or find satisfaction. They are the biggest consumers, always wanting more while others suffer. You're only projecting the immorality upon the victims who won't show up in the comments here. The system is immoral. It is ending gracefully or ungracefully. It will not stay as it has been.

[@PoliticalEconomy101]

Im a socialist, im for changing the game. We dont need competition, we need cooperation.