Basic income and other ways to fix capitalism | Federico Pistono | TEDxHaarlem

[@Orf]

He's changing the slides just by pointing. It's magic.

[@aabmets]

+Matt Orfalea He's wearing muscle electrical activity detector wristband, which has been programmed to respond to finger pointing action.

[@Mikeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee]

haha :D

[@crowdholding361]

There this great article about the Year Capitalism Could Have Changed - www.crowdholding.com/blog/130/the-year-capitalism-could-have-changed

[@eneaaltamura4576]

yes , it is!!!

[@valeriewilliams129]

Matt Orfalea David ick

[@yantivermeulen2744]

one of the best TED talks I've seen, I love the emphasis on the data

[@Whosgonnacarrytheboats]

@Snappingturtle 267 did you even watch the video?? ignoramous!

[@marcopinchetti5872]

@Snappingturtle 267 you didn't watch the part where he clearly states that biggest companies actually reduce employment rates all over the world I guess..

[@marcopinchetti5872]

@Snappingturtle 267 some of the most basic rules on which capitalism is founded are going rotten. Marginal costs are going to 0 pretty fast --> there's no more profit for investments in real economy + automation unemployement is about to explode, like really fast. If you link the income to the job there'll simply not be people buying stuff (another rule at the base going down)

[@marcopinchetti5872]

@Snappingturtle 267 I don't even know why I am replying.. maybbe for other people who might read? Anyhow: rule#01: in order for an investor to risk his capital is the promise of a profit. If the marginal costs of products go to 0, there is just no room for profit. If the production cost for goods becomes 0$ then competition will just erase the profit rule#02: in order to sell something, you need someone to buy it. This works as long as you give money to those who work for you and they will use their money to buy stuff. When unemployement goes to 50% in an eye blink, there will just not be people buying stuff. Both this things are happening and have never happened before. I give you that free market (which BTW is tecnically something different from capitalism, which has a specific meaning) worked pretty well up until now raising live standards all over the world (poor countries above all). I just see how this can't just go on forever and how it probably ends pretty soon.

[@WindTunnelRacing]

@@marcopinchetti5872 This guy could not pass Economics 101. Period. And I'd love to debate him in front of the world. WHAT Data is there Yanti? He just throws up Buzz Words with no explanation of the Results of what has Happened BECAUSE of Capitalism. Which is being the Greatest Thing to Ever happen for Human Life and Equality. You go Live in the Soviet Union and Venezuela and North Korea. Get back to me.

[@SteveV1960]

If you like this talk ,you need to look up presidential candidate Andrew Yang on KZbin.

[@chancelacina]

@BUXB Definitely preferred anyway. :)

[@thetruthbetoldpodcast-hiph9311]

Pretty sure Yang picked up some ideas from this guy

[@APBpa]

@@thetruthbetoldpodcast-hiph9311 They may even be friends. Hmmmm?

[@christopherkettler8727]

Oh no jts magic lol

[@jeffkeil1595]

8 months later Yang is failing as bad as historical UBI. LOL!

[@AnnoyedDragon]

Regardless of whether the UBI is or is not the solution, we need a solution, this problem cannot be ignored. Even if you're a hardcore cut throat capitalist that adopts a Scrooge position to the surplus labour force, your business cannot survive without a customer. Can we at least agree on that? Well who is the customer when a great deal of the population are unemployed? Human resource costs are often businesses largest expense, the first thing they try to minimise. By fully automating your business you can produce your good or service at a much lower price, but if everyone does this; then consumers won't have any disposable income. It won't matter how cheap your product is, people with no income will still be unable to afford it. There will be some that still have an income from employment, but the competition for their business will be very fierce. Many businesses will be in surplus to the spending power available in the economy. What they imposed on their workforce will become their own fate. So this needs to be solved. Not just to be humane, but to keep the economy afloat as well. Business after all is a cycle of transactions between producers and consumers, one cannot survive without the other.

[@LHFX]

+AnnoyedDragon If what you said were true then if we looked at the unemployment rate we should be able to see a gradual increase of the number of unemployed people actively searching for a job as a percentage of the general population. We should see at least the start of this trend. It simply isn't there. Let's have this talk about the basic income when this hypothesis for a modern economy with fewer and fewer jobs actually becomes a reality. IMHO it will never happen (people talk about this happening since the start of the industrial revolution - it is not new), certainly not in this century.

[@AnnoyedDragon]

+LHFX You know the unemployment rate figures are fiddled right? They redefined unemployment to mean job seeker claimants, so they can reduce the unemployment rate by taking people off jobseekers. Anyone who is sanctioned is magically no longer unemployed. They also count anyone "in training" as not unemployed, so anyone on the work programme aren't counted in the figures; even though they're obviously unemployed. Then there are all the zero hour contract people who are counted as in employment, even though there is no contractual requirement to give them any hours. There are so many ways they can fiddle the figures down. I remember when I was at A4e they stuck us on this fraudulent course that didn't teach us anything, a week before the figures were due to be published. The affect was because we were "in training" at that time, we weren't counted in the figures. They announced a "jobs miracle" that following week with how low the figures dropped...

[@LHFX]

+AnnoyedDragon You have no idea what are you talking about. Search for ILO: "Resolution concerning statistics of the economically active population, employment, unemployment and underemployment, adopted by the Thirteenth International Conference of Labour Statisticians (October 1982)" This is how everyone measures unemployment ever since, including in Romania, where I'm from. Of course someone who is in training isn't counted because they don't fall under the definition, but the definition itself remains unchanged. Therefore, a change in the way the labour market functions should be observed by simply looking at the unemployment rate.

[@AnnoyedDragon]

+LHFX You seem to think that just because a international standard exists, this somehow prevents the UK government from fiddling the figures. You're very naive if that is the case. As another example, all the UK government has to do is sanction someone of their unemployment benefit; then like magic they're no longer unemployed. www.michaelmeacher.info/weblog/2014/03/government-fiddles-unemployment-figures-by-classifying-all-people-sanctioned-as-having-left-claimant-count/

[@LHFX]

+AnnoyedDragon You see... this is what happens when you try and learn economics or read news from blogs. Then you come here pretending that you can have informed opinions on the subject. Unemployment is measured based on a survey that follows precisely that definition set out by the ILO. It has absolutely nothing to do with the number of people claiming and/or receiving unemployment benefits. I'm talking about the unemployment rate that you will find reported by EUROSTAT... not some bogus figures posted on Daily Mail or some blog of an MP. "Short Description: Unemployment rates represent unemployed persons as a percentage of the labour force. The labour force is the total number of people employed and unemployed. Unemployed persons comprise persons aged 15 to 74 who were: a. without work during the reference week, b. currently available for work, i.e. were available for paid employment or self-employment before the end of the two weeks following the reference week, c. actively seeking work, i.e. had taken specific steps in the four weeks period ending with the reference week to seek paid employment or self-employment or who found a job to start later, i.e. within a period of, at most, three months." Source - EUROSTAT. First learn where you can get reliable information in order to learn... then learn. Otherwise, despite your good intentions you'll end up just fooling yourself.

[@chrisscoggins3151]

I think this guy may have warmed up my frigid opinion against UBI. Very impressive, I need to do more research

[@gravisred]

Chris Scoggins I’m in the same mindset. I’m not necessarily opposed to new social programs. Only so long as they have the proper research and real word data to support them.

[@dadikkedude]

Sinds I was 18 years old I got benefits from the government unconditionally for health reasons. I allways worked alot eventhough I didn't necessarily needed to. It gave me space to reach my goals and in some ways I'm better off than my friends with alot less stress surrounding me making me more productive. Actually doing a study I want to do and not just for the money, or having to keep a job that's completely tiring me out just to pay rent and have my food. I have the space to actually do something for society being a part time social worker.

[@english5895]

Thx for sharing this!

[@gurubivolaru5114]

You know that Government gave you money from people that actually work and pay taxes, right?

[@estlou]

Great demonstration and speech, enjoyed this very much. The impossible is possible, the conclusion and 'outro' to this video was a very empowering and great message as well. Thank you.

[@rjung_ch]

As a Swiss I was saddened that this wasn't given a chance. Had more Swiss watched this Ted Talk of yours and had not been scared by those against it, who knows what would have become? We Swiss are a scared bunch, always asking who will pay, bla bla bla. So, am 61 now, I voted for it, but the majority was scared and voted NO. Too bad? I think an opportunity missed. Sad but true. Love your talk Federico Pistono!

[@english5895]

That's really unfortunate! Would have loved to see how this experiment would've played out!

[@MassDynamic]

dude's right. without enough data, making an accurate model and prediction is impossible..

[@alvincay100]

We already have enough data: welfare begets more welfare. That is a multi generational phenomenon that any simple study will not catch.

[@iolair1973]

@@alvincay100 What's your source?

[@friedrichdergroe9664]

@Gerr Gerring "Structural inequality" is a nice scare word, but it in and of itself is a "fairy tale", to use the words of the speaker. Human ingenuity knows no bounds, and tends to blow apart just about every model you try to throw at it. Trump has already proven this in the US. No UBI there. Jobs, created by capitalism, with government out of the way. It's the same process that has lifted millions out of poverty world-wide over the decades.

[@kaufmanat1]

@Gerr Gerring change your language. I was born into a middle class family. I have a 6 figure income. I inherited no "wealth". I inherited the benefit of loving and caring parents that taught me how to succeed in today's society. It's not wealth being transferred from parents to children. That's childish reasoning, and demonstrably untrue. What's transferred isn't wealth, it's knowledge and training.

[@ellinmara5997]

@@kaufmanat1 Dude, what the heck are you talking about? Just because something is true for you doesn't mean it's true for 7 billion people. You may be healthy and are living in a first-world country, you have loving and caring parents who taught you how to be successful in this world, but a lot of people don't have any of that. And please kindly explain to me how the children of millionaires and billionaires are not inheriting wealth. It's true, you don't necessarily have to inherit wealth to be successful, esp. in America or Europe, but it's a gigantic advantage if you do. For most people the American Dream is just that - a dream.

[@backgroundcharacterj5071]

I swear it feels like yang watched this video and brought it into politics

[@publicopinion3596]

Haha yeah I was thinking that aswell lol

[@APBpa]

Like a stated earlier. They might even be friends.

[@emreakkocdev]

His idea to implement UBI was way before his candidacy.

[@jamesanton8912]

Yang needs to get a better plan 1,000 isn’t enough

[@rinker8010]

if you mean that in the sense that yang wants to implement the experiment Federico is talking about, then yes. In yang's case it would last 4 years :) Federico is calling for detailed experiments, not implementing it right away.

[@necelticsox]

I love the message behind this video. Capitalism is good, but when it's nor working, you don't get rid of it. You improve it.

[@bgaldos_]

Such a clear talk to make a reflect about the incoming problems. Keep it up Federico!

[@VampireSquirrel]

I am willing to volunteer to be experimented on!

[@ebe7157]

So you are lazy?

[@caseyjc5]

Rachel Evans Would you also volunteer to pay more in taxes or have the cost of everything you buy go up? Doubt it, but either one of those will for a fact happen if UBI does.

[@arete7884]

@@ebe7157 some people have higher IQ cant fulfill their life with just getting a job.

[@olgatachmazidoudella]

Rachel Evans have you heard of sm1 yet?

[@olgatachmazidoudella]

EBE 7 i am,

[@johneurek8181]

I would consider myself far right... but I love this Milton Friedman idea. This idea rewards WORK! Our current system gives food stamps, welfare, section 8, but when you WORK, you get less help. It punishes people who try to help themselves.

[@maximkazhenkov11]

UBI is not even a left-wing proposal. It entirely depends on the amount. If social security was replaced by a UBI of 200$ per month, it would be an extremely right-wing policy because it would A) reduce tax spending and B) unemployed people would receive less than now. Also, unemployed people would have MORE incentive to work because getting a job does not conflict with the UBI they receive, as opposed to social security, so that counter-argument doesn't make sense either. If you truly believed in capitalism, shouldn't you trust people's self-interest motivating them to work, rather than having the government forcing unemployed people to apply for jobs?

[@spaceopera87]

It would probably be a lot more than $200 a month

[@Axrover]

Here's a motivation to get people back to work....Stop giving them free money. Cut the welfare crap and watch them get to work.

[@maximkazhenkov11]

I'm pretty sure they would just starve to death. Who would employ unskilled labor when machines do the job cheaper and faster?

[@Axrover]

I was replaced once by a machine. You know what I did, I improved my skillset. I didn't starve. I was ineligible for welfare so I was very motivated to work to eat. So should all be.

[@maximkazhenkov11]

Good thing you didn't run out of funds before finding a new job. Not everyone has the opportunity to re-train.

[@bobthecannibal1]

Problems: 1: Not so much "adapt to other fields" as stay within their classification and adapt to the change. Coach builders didn't disappear with the invention of the automobile, they started building cars (or car parts), Secretaries and computer programmers didn't disappear when ASM gave way to C and C++ or hand-written dictation giving way to typewriters and computers. 2: Inequality isn't bad. You premise that a basic income is good. It isn't: How do you define an average? Add the member values together and divide by the number of members. So start with 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5: The average is 3. What's the average? 3. By adding a basic income (call it 2) you no longer have any ones. What's the problem? Oh, nothing, except that physics describes the flow of money. The first law of thermodynamics basically amounts to "no free lunch": you can't create something (energy, order or money) from nothing. The absolute worst still is to take from the top to pay the bottom: Communism. That doesn't work. It leads to "wreckers", "as long as the state pretends to pay me, I will pretend to work", shortages, state sanctioned executions and cattle cars to Gulags. What you're doing is destroying the incentive to make things (Why should I work harder when I get paid regardless) Is it wrong that CEOs should be compensated commensurate with the amount of risk their investors aren't exposed to and reward provided under their leadership? 3: The middle class is under siege not by the haves, but by the have-nots. 4: Redistribution doesn't change things. And you can't take just Germany, you have to include Greece and Spain, "Because LOL EUROZONE.". (Stings a bit, don't it. The US would be excellent if you could get rid of DC and NY, as usual.) South Korea's economy is sick: 1 USD will get you 1,138.45 Won. One Mexican Peso will get you 67 Won. Is that where you want to be? Because I don't. 5: (@8:49) I was always taught there is no such thing as "free money" or "free beer". And where would you get this money (@9:10) Oh hell no it isn't. I can already see this coming. It's been tried, it doesn't exist any more. Why? "Evolution": It made the economies less fit than the current systems. It went extinct. And before yammering about "But it hasn't been tried here! We can make it work this time!" Yeah, and I'll bet Lucy really will hold that football this time so you can kick it, Charlie Brown. 6: @11:00 That's not a right. That's a privilege. A right is something simple that relies on no government (per se.) and leaves you open to the consequences of exercising that right. Self defense, ability to say what you please, the ability to associate with others as one pleases... Taking from others (and yes, by implied lethal force: what happens if you say "Fuck you, I won't pay my taxes to support this!" you will be carted off to jail. If you say "Fuck you: no, I won't go!" you will be shot more than likely.) 7: @11:31 Oh, I've heard something like this before. "You have to pass the bill to see what's in it." That's unconscionable. *Prove* it works *first*. Tell me the unintended and "unanticipated" (which any reasonably intelligent adult can anticipate) consequences. 8: @12:17 Oh, good, then why are you pushing the idea? Go do more (and larger) experiments. 9: @14:02 That would be because there was someone else to employ and/or market to that wasn't a part of the study. (goes back to point #4) 10: @15:42 Except for when it doesn't. People come to the US for health care from public, single payer health care systems. (I wouldn't consider Canada or the UK health care systems to be a "working" by any stretch of the imagination. 11: @15:55 Oh great, I can see the five-year agricultural plans forming already, Comrade. 12: @17:15 And the year after? How are you going to account for the "median" income when everyone is getting paid 50% of that. (average of 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 is 3, pay everyone 1.5 and the inequality still exists. Limit it to everyone under 3 and you end up with perverse outcomes like 2s becoming 3.5s. Nice job, you've just shot the middle class (the 3s) you're trying to save. Why would the 3s work to be paid higher than 2? 13: @17:25 I can already tell you, it won't be. Save your time. This rolls back to the parenthetical snark in #7, above. 14: @17:48 Blind leading the blind there, Chief. I *did* say *reasonably intelligent adult*, didn't I? 15: @18:00 LOL BWAHAHAHA! Oh, that's rich. I can simplify bureaucracy a lot quicker: It's called a going through the laws on the books and removing them if they adversely impact anyone doing an activity that doesn't impact others negatively. (Prostitution is one of these: "...[T]he intersection of sex and capitalism. Which are you against?") 16: @18:06 Yes, I'm going to trust my money to a deflationary system. (If my money is going to be worth more in a few days, why am I going to spend it?) Bitcoin and other cryptocurrencies has some pretty bad side effects, commented on ad nauseam, by smarter people elsewhere. 17 @18:15 And they still haven't cracked the issue because of the block chain size and lack of internet. 18: And they still haven't voted on the matter nine months later. 20: @18:51 Let me shoot some of those down: "But I thought your health care system was Teh Best EVAR!!!!~`1!!!one!", "Not bad in and of itself, see above", "Not a factor, see #1 above", "See #12." 22: @19:18 You can point that finger at the people saying "THE SCIENCE IS SETTLED!" and "PEOPLE WHO DISAGREE WITH AGW SHOULD NOT BE ALLOWED TO SPEAK!" That is, the same people who believe income inequality is a bad thing. 23: @19:37 'scuse, but that picture was brought to you by income inequality. Have a nice day. Signed, A member of the (lower) middle class.

[@LemonPieLoL]

+Andrew Foss TL;DR. You actually tried to use the laws of heat and energy to support your argument - talk about trying to hammer in a nail with a banana. You talk too much - lay off the drugs.

[@bobthecannibal1]

phys.org/news/2009-11-law-thermodynamics-economic-evolution.html Or en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thermoeconomics Or tuvalu.santafe.edu/~desmith/PDF_talks/Econ_Thermo_CSSS_07_SF.pdf Or even academic.pgcc.edu/~wboyle/TMDInfoEcon.pdf TL;DR: Everything is physics.

[@AbeDillon]

What's stopping land lords from raising rent when basic income is implemented? Same thing that stops them from raising rent without basic income: competition.

[@Orf]

Also price fixing is illegal in the U.S. And other countries

[@SailorBarsoom]

+Abe Dillon That's right. If I raise the rent a thousand euros and the other landlord doesn't, I'm not going to be a landlord for long. But if I *don't* jack up the rent, then people who could _almost_ afford to rent from me now _can_ rent from me. Now what would I rather do: gain new customers or chase away the ones I've already got?

[@Coinpease]

+Abe Dillon .... Or policy. It's all about keeping those with more accountable. Otherwise they run the rest of us over eventually.

[@a46475]

+Abe Dillon The Law of Rent. "The rent of land is determined by the excess of its produce over that which the same application can secure from the least productive land in use." -- David Ricardo Think of a new subway station only short walk from your apartment. Do you think your rent will remain the same after your lease is over? The competition won't be for tenants. It will be for your conveniently-located apartment. The supply of land is fixed; they are not making anymore. Other people will raise your rent, not the landlord.

[@SailorBarsoom]

a46475 They're not making any more of it *YET.* In Dubai they're making more of it, and if they can do it, so can others.

[@MrPhilsterable]

I suggest we run a U.S. wide 250+ million sample size UBI experiment at the level of 1000$ per month for the next 50+ years.

[@NB-qr5ow]

Have you heard of Andrew Yang?

[@andrewjacot7423]

So we would spend 14% of our GDP on UBI? That’s a great way to crash our economy, slow GDP Growth, and bankrupt us. How do we pay for this?

[@fraudsarentfriends4717]

Fix capitalism is to bring back capitalism.We haven’t had capitalism in many years. Bring back competition

[@TorbenRudgaard]

I am the top 2% and I do own a lot of real estate - and I actually think this "citizen salary" will work. But in order for it to work and to equalize out the wealth, we need more equal simple tax rules. Today the tax rules are so complex and advanced that it is easy for a guy like me (who can afford very expensive tax accountants) to completely avoid taxes even thou I make a lot of money. The solution to pay this "citizen salary" would be to tax everyone equally and completely REMOVE all the complex tax rules. If we made it 35% taxes on any and all income, even I could not avoid to pay it. As long as people think "tax the rich higher with complex tax laws" we will never get the rich to pay taxes cause we always knows how to avoid them. The more complex tax rules, the better for us. A simple law saying 35% of EVERYTHING - that would be impossible to get around, even for the rich, and then we can afford this citizen salary! .

[@travis0629]

nothing is impossible to get around. people will find a way. why not instead of raising the rich mans taxes we lower the poor mans?

[@travis0629]

+John Burt maybe one day you can be president and have your tax code officially ignored and evaded.

[@travis0629]

+John Burt morally I can't support any tax code morally. and pragmatically there are no taxes that don't pose problems to peoples freedom and the economy in general.

[@travis0629]

+John Burt I don't need to answer your question to defend freedom morally. i don't support any initiation of force no matter what end they are for. and pragmatically no government can protect you from the problems you listed. the usa has never been more encompassing and powerful yet none of those issues are completely solved. what do you do for the poor? there are free market answers for all of your questions. all you need to do is search with reason instead of beliefs.

[@travis0629]

+John Burt if you are genuinely curious then give this article a read. it covers most of what you brought up. mises.org/library/markets-are-our-best-hope-peaceful-cooperation

[@tharga8616]

Thanks Federico for your talk. Let's do it!

[@vikitheviki]

Basic Income should not be seen upon as 'free money' but a dividend because ALL people have worked to build the richness on this planet but only a few been allowed to benefit from it, hoarding money in another word. This is the very cause of all the so called 'crisis' and suffering we have today.

[@sibubhattacharyya6275]

kaxitaksi

[@Lucas-me8ef]

Yeah, but how could it be accomplished? Tax the riches wont work.

[@pinoable]

People come in all different shapes and sizes. Some people are genuinely lazy sods who will never contribute to society unless they need to in order to feed themselves. Forget guaranteed income, implemented guaranteed jobs instead.

[@mothereric8774]

On the note of laziness, with guaranteed money you could take more risks. Also this could help address the world of automation outlined in CPG Grey's "humans need not apply" ( also watch that video if you haven't already. ). On the lines of funding I have heard about implementing a carbon tax, which kills two birds with one stone. I'm not sure how truthful the estimates are, but some say that a guaranteed basic income is cheaper than our welfare programs etc. .

[@pinoable]

You are right, there is a big difference between the kinds of risks I'll take if failing will leave me broke and the the risks I'll take where failure is essentially meaningless. A UBI will indeed free people up to do all sorts of things they couldn't do before, but most of the things they do will be without value to the rest of society.

[@maartenplug3871]

What I always see in discussions about basic income is that people call other people parasites that will not contribute to society if they would get a basic income. But for themselves: "No, of course I will not quit my job if I get a basic income". So then: why do these people only consider other people to be parasites and not themselves? I think people who call other people parasites need psychological help, to help them to get real.

[@DrOlegKulikov]

because people are not equal. however, basic income is deadly for society. swiss people are not idiots to reject it.

[@dojohansen123]

How do you know basic income is "deadly for society"? Most people in Norway, where I live, have more than a basic income, and we think that's swell. I don't have any data either and agree with the TED-talker that the effects of UBI are unknown. But I can see some reasons to think it would be very good for society. Here's some of what I imagine might happen: People who love their jobs would continue doing them, and people who don't like their job would quit. Many of those who quit will however not be sitting around at home doing nothing. Some will just enjoy life and reduce their consumption so they can get by on the basic income. Some will study, at universities or online or something else, to try to get into a line of work that they think they will actually enjoy. And I think quite a few would start working on their own little "get rich" schemes. Many business ideas that take time to get going or generate to little income to be viable today might be perfectly possible in a UBI context, and I think we would see a little explosion in innovation. But even more importantly, this would really transform our workplaces. When employers know that their employees have the very real possibility of just saying "thanks, but no thanks" and leave, they will have much stronger incentives to treat them well. In high-skilled jobs where people need a long time to become productive employees it is already expensive for an employer to have high turnover, so they do tend to treat these employees quite well and keep them happy. But people in low-skilled jobs (not low-skilled workers! the cashier may have great skills, but there may be greater supply than demand for those skills) are easy to replace, and employers are nowhere near as consistently treating them well. UBI would shift the power balance and lead to workers having far more of a say regarding their own job. We might also have to pay higher wages for some low-skilled but unpleasant jobs that not many people enjoy doing. But I think that's a good thing too - if a job is unpleasant it is only fair that this gets compensated through higher pay. To simply exploit people who depend on us, such as by refusing to give fair compensation because we know they have no real choice, is immoral.

[@blazedones]

CommonCentsRob lol, but you are going to be the only honest one to keep your job and receive ubi... The leeches won't do anything productive at all. Thanks for letting us know though must be from the future to know how this turns out and how the the majority of these leeches wont do/give back in anyway shape or form. You da real hero

[@edwardpaterson1957]

maarten plug wrong buddy, I would never work again.

[@jasonbarsanti2222]

This is what is called, in psychology, FAE Fundamental Attribution Error. Meaning you perceive the locus of control to be internal for others but external for yourself. In short you say when others behave poorly it's because they are flawed but when I behave poorly it is because things around me are flawed

[@yjlconductor]

Andrew Yang 2020!

[@MindandQiR1]

ANDREW YANG 2020

[@krangismcbasketball4975]

As to the rent control dilemma. If you want to raise prices because we all have more money I will keep my prices the same and take all of your business. Competition will keep prices in check.

[@theinfeno]

Rent Control also has the problem with limiting the incentives to build new apartments and homes. Why build an apartment complex if it will take decades or never get a return on your investment. Lots of people hate profit, but they also forget it is the incentive for almost everything to actually happen.

[@p.s.9991]

Huge respect that he spoke that good ,he is so young and his thinking is really good

[@galactic904]

Tax and recoup it 100% from Google, Facebook, Uber... and the Banks too. The governments need the balls to go after the offshore Corporate Taxes of these companies and future ones.

[@violet6507]

I'm a big fan of him. He delivered speech I want to talk since the previous TED Talks

[@TyroneThomasJr]

For the last 7 years, I have been working on an concept that will solve the issue of poverty, reversing economic inequality, and reducing or eliminating the need for welfare programs. My concept is the only method I am aware of that will grow and stabilize the middle class while creating income for those at the bottom without disturbing the foundation of capitalism for which America and most developed countries are built upon. I have also expanded it to include asset acquisition and wealth building due to the inevitable loss of jobs from automation and technology. Governments, Educational Institutions and Nonprofit Organizations across the world are finally beginning to experiment and understand the value and benefits of Universal Basic Income. We are still ahead of the curve because, our concept is the only one that addresses the elephant in the room question of expansion funding and sustainability. All other ideas will require some form of tax revenue and government involvement in order to function. Wouldn't this still be a government social net program similar to what we currently have? Our concept is totally different, because it will be supported by the private sector and capable of self-funding after a small initial investment as it expands to rapidly benefit more people, provide more opportunities, strengthen our economy and solve more problems. Nothing like United Shared Savings Network has ever been proposed for implementation, study or a pilot project. I also haven't seen or read anything similar in stories or articles on the subject matters of Economic Inequality, New Economy, Universal Basic Income etc. The United Shared Savings Network concept may very well be the Holy Grail that we seek to fix that which we are all trying to accomplish in making the world a better place for everyone. I am dedicated and truly concerned about moving humanity forward and making this world a better place for everyone.

[@worldisfilledb]

You’re essentially tryna baby people

[@NaNa-nu9sf]

Hardcore Absolute Fact: 1.) Private building ownership ( rent control ) must be calculated based on the poorest sovereign human beings ( homeless ) who are excluded from society from livable wage, respectable jobs and make a living panhandling to survive! Property owners are too greedy and never moral = always raising rents on the hardwork of those on fixed incomes!

[@shanesmyck2557]

We need to focus on data-driven, not ideology driven decision making. But even so Basic Income has something for people from every side of the traditional "spectrums": lower government involvement and cost in assistance programs for the fiscally and socially 'right'. And on the 'left', everyone theoretically gets to have a basic standard of living that's considerably higher than what is possible through current assistance programs. The creation of wealth will rely less and less on labour going forward, so Basic Income is at least worth a reasonable experimental attempt.

[@marchebert9813]

It has failed every time it's been tried.

[@funtu4921]

Marc Hebert crazy Andrew Yang has a slogan that goes “not left not right. Forward. And he advocates for UBI”

[@silverlinings3946]

@@marchebert9813 this is blatantly untrue.

[@danielhutchinson6604]

A real experiment that dispenses with money entirely, has been tried in several locations. That alternative seems to be left out of the conversation? The cost is considerable lower..... The effect is equality. The only people harmed are the Wealthy. Their cease to exist, due to the measurement needing money to establish value.....

[@Z4RQUON]

There are some people out there who claim to be capitalists but really aren't, and this question is a test for separating the two. Pure capitalism is no basis for arguing against a UBI. If you believe that using a token currency is the best method for distributing resources, and the UBI ensures a baseline level of circulation in the marketplace, there is no principle you can point to to reject the notion without contradicting yourself. The problem is not everybody agrees on the goal. . . some (very successful and influential) people view capitalism as a means of inflicting justice, as a means of taking things _away_ from people for the sin of not being like them.

[@1984Kojot]

If you give to all ppl basic income u will have to steal from ppl that work hard and save money.

[@Z4RQUON]

GeneralJack This is already true without a UBI

[@1984Kojot]

@@Z4RQUON It is always true and it is wrong thing to do but giving to all ppl printed money will completely destroy its value. It is happening in my country.

[@khongminh5168]

A very objective and honest talk about UBI. Frederico Pistono. I’ll remember that name.

[@ThePolaris87]

This is such an important advancement that mankind inevitably needs to arrive to, even if the idea currently seems to completely foreign and unprecedented. People need to accept that the world is a very different place than it was even just a couple decades ago. Many studies show that most people will continue seeking ways to contribute to society even if they don't have to. And many of our greatest minds agree that a Universal Basic Income is simply inevitable. Even wealthy individuals can see how this will simply make the world a much better place. I hope to see this become the norm in our lifetimes, if not in the next 10-20 years. (Note this is not assuming that there are not other problems that are will also need addressing in the long run, such as preventing overpopulation and climate change).

[@writinghealth]

Fede!!! Quando hai datto questo Tedd Talk! Lo scropro solo oggi, quanto sono fiero di te!!!

[@writinghealth]

For those who do not speak Italian, he was my senior in high school!!!at the United World College of the Adriatic.

[@ammaribrahim5756]

we're the youth. We must take control over the chaos created by influential greedy capitalists

[@StephenKanitz]

The R in R>G. Is miscalculated diliberatly. its the Return of only succesfull companies, and excludes all unsuccessfull companies with zero returns. R is always < than G.

[@lundatjie]

I'm in favour of UBI. Currently, people are absorbing the costs of capitalism through poor health, begging, borrowing and stealing. I'm quite happy to have my fellow human being live a better life, otherwise we pay for it anyway.

[@iant419]

Lunda Wright Taxation is theft. Prove me wrong.

[@alexc2265]

exactly

[@rufuspipemos]

All money is derived from "production." When you create money without underlying production and hand it to people not producing, the money becomes devalued in purchasing power. Also, you and I all know plenty of people who would love to get just enough basic income to not work at all. Thus, most of us would work so that a large swath of people can be lazy. Not.... happening.

[@reaperluke3518]

When jobs in retail, driving, trucking, maunfacturing, steel-milling, agriculture, etc. get all taken by machines, how exactly do you propose we sustain a population of nearly 10 billion individuals, most of which unemployed? The only way is taxing machines like they're humans, and that money becomes the UBI, which is then used by people for purchasing things. The alternative is mass extermination.

[@BathshebaE1]

@@reaperluke3518 & @Roy Piper. These are both very good points. Both agree the money has to come from tax. The problem now is trillions of dollars have been printed out of thin air and this must stop or it will just get worse.

[@michaelarchbold2129]

Andrew Yang for President!!

[@V21IC]

Without UBI I would be just as dead! I have seen the same over 20 job openings appearing on Linked and on many websites that are dedicated to advertising job openings for the past 6 months. I have sent out literally over 100 applications and have never been offered an interview. After a couple days or weeks, I would sometimes receive via email messages informing me that the job offer is no longer available and that my resumé would be placed on file. However, these same vacancies would resurface on these same or different websites/platforms! I'm a professional in Electronic security and Structured cabling but now have been unemployed for the past 6 months! I bought myself a new tool kit and electronic test equipment recently. So, I have decided that I should try to design electronic security systems, CCTV, with the use of AutoCad and other CCTV design software. It's going to be 100% free at first.

[@deckuofm]

Western TV must be fixed to fix capitalism. This TV shows nonsense instead of what situation in the world really is and how good life should look.

[@williampotter1004]

Here's something from Wikipedia: "Musa made his pilgrimage between 1324-1325.[18][19] His procession reportedly included 60,000 men, including 12,000 slaves[20] who each carried 4 lb (1.8 kg) of gold bars and heralds dressed in silks who bore gold staffs, organized horses, and handled bags. Musa provided all necessities for the procession, feeding the entire company of men and animals.[21] Those animals included 80 camels which each carried 50-300 lb (23-136 kg) of gold dust. Musa gave the gold to the poor he met along his route. Musa not only gave to the cities he passed on the way to Mecca, including Cairo and Medina, but also traded gold for souvenirs. It was reported that he built a mosque every Friday.[citation needed] Musa's journey was documented by several eyewitnesses along his route, who were in awe of his wealth and extensive procession, and records exist in a variety of sources, including journals, oral accounts, and histories. Musa is known to have visited the Mamluk sultan of Egypt, Al-Nasir Muhammad, in July 1324.[22] But Musa's generous actions inadvertently devastated the economy of the regions through which he passed. In the cities of Cairo, Medina, and Mecca, the sudden influx of gold devalued the metal for the next decade. Prices on goods and wares greatly inflated. To rectify the gold market, on his way back from Mecca, Musa borrowed all the gold he could carry from money-lenders in Cairo, at high interest. This is the only time recorded in history that one man directly controlled the price of gold in the Mediterranean.[23]" en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Musa_I_of_Mali

[@prodigy1605]

Alaska has been pretty much doing this since 1982

[@thaotaylor6669]

This young man has more human emotion than anyone, and hope it does inspire the whole world to do this because we might not have time left on this planet. in 10 or 20 there will be no jobs A.I will take over most skill jobs anyway , so if your an accountants don't be so mighty.

[@stevenpoetisie1456]

people are great. we hebben teacher, data analyser enz nodig om mensen te overtuigen dat als wij zo doorgaan het leven op aarde een uitdaging wordt voor ons allen. keep on doing powerful studies. one day God will help us.

[@DirtPoorWargamer]

The problem with running limited experiments (even with 10s of thousands of participants) is that nay-sayers will always argue that it only worked because the scale was significantly smaller than a whole country.

[@alexc2265]

Confirmation bias by optional stopping. They're only critical about the other side of the debate. Also, when has such a large experiment ever failed to extrapolate to a group thought to be represented by the sample? It's rare enough that such arguments should be taken to be nonsense or at least without justification.

[@jessarose2288]

Even when you do it and prove it on a larger amount of people they'll go: Yeah, but the population there is homogeneous... Which, I have realized really just translates to; "Successful because everyone is white there.'

[@McRyach]

That's a great Talk. It seems to be exactly right. Those who can combine both Capitalism and Socialism are on the top of social development. But those who stick to ideological paradigms are suffering in attempts to prove that their paradigm is the superior one, while not noticing the people and their problems. Great Idea Rederico!

[@travis0629]

but his premise is that no one has stuck to an ideology completely so how could they have failed. some would say a society is successful to the degree that it allows capitalist tendencies.

[@None12445]

Thank you! Great Ted talk.

[@kerrylin944]

This is a touchy subject for a lot of people. I think it must have taken a lot of courage for him to speak in front of that audience but he did such a good job!!!!

[@richcampus]

"VENTURE CAPITAL FOR THE PEOPLE" UBI ~

[@emilboehme6813]

This constructivist point of view is maybe the most simplistic but also the most realistic one, just like he said: We NEED more public debate about the UBI based on real empirical studies on longterm affects to overcome the inequality, caused by the capitalistic maximisation of profits.

[@knpstrr]

First rule of capitalism, if you're trying to "fix it" you don't have capitalism. We (the USA) hasn't had true free market capitalism since... ever. It just a fix, to fix a fix, which fixes a fix. Liken to what has happened to our tax code for example.

[@pollp1337]

+knpstrr As he said. No country is truly capitalist and no country is truly socialist

[@TRUTHandLIGHT4809]

USA is capitalist mixed with Corrupt government hand outs. Only socialist countries have all died a horrific death or now are dying, IE Venezuela. To make myself CLEAR--there are Capitalist countries. Any country that has money to be robbed from and have SOCIALIST program is Capitalist. Any country where government controls the means of production IS, or WAS socialist. When we spout off about certain countries doing WELL--they are Capitalist. When we are horrified by what is happening--they are SOCIALIST.

[@Priestofgoddess]

Greed is limitless therefore a truly free market would be pure anarchy.

[@VeryProPlayerYesSir1122]

capitalism (80% capacity) => big improvement of standard of living. communism (100% capacity) => massive poverty => still need more communism.

[@Priestofgoddess]

So, why do we then have massive poverty now, while we are capitalistic?

[@Thehopsalot]

What you said about rent is true in the short therm. If rents increase then appartments become more profitable. If they're more profitable then they will build more apartments which will bring the prices down. Once the supply matches demand, they will have lower prices to a reasonable amount because of competition.

[@ronaldonmg]

Nice theory, but in practice it's more profitable for housing-owners to make sure there's a housing-shortage

[@samwatkins7689]

I grew up a conservative capitalist and even i can see the logic in this. it has to be done extremely carefully however, and gradual

[@CockatooDude]

What has to be so careful about it? Provide all citizens of the country with a basic income which keeps them above the poverty line, no strings attached. If people want to make more money, they can get a job and whatever they earn from the job is simply added to their income. No government control of private property needed, no socialist policies. The current capitalist system could stay in place untouched. All it would end up doing is truly giving every citizen an equal opportunity, one of the principles which this country was founded on.

[@CockatooDude]

+Hodor of the door Well people won't have that much more money per se under a well implemented UBI. Just enough to live on if they don't have a job. That won't really equate to massive increases in inflation.

[@TRUTHandLIGHT4809]

Disaster--central government giving money out--is welfare. The government must rob people at gun point to get that money.

[@MaximC]

Hodor of the door What we better be extremely careful about is: implement UBI (and not just coins, but one enough to conduct a *very decent* life) as soon as possible and for as much as possible percentage of the population, *BEFORE* we end up in experiencing the consequences of the *overproduction crisis* much, MUCH worse than that of 1920s. Yep, if you didn't know, we are heading right in that direction, if we don't change...

[@MaximC]

Sam Watkins It's because you are not "a conservative capitalist" - these are just labels, designed to divide people which could actually have many common thoughts, but instead of sharing their worldview each other, they dismiss each other only by watching what's on the surface (a label).

[@CaliMeatWagon]

In the U.S.A. Health Care costs didn't increase because of privatization, they increased because of government subsidization. Same thing that caused education costs to increase. Same thing that causes most states to grow useless crops.

[@Turtle-xp4kh]

Yang 2020

[@AliBooondok]

I am here because of Andrew Yang. It’s refreshing to see this was a serious discussion only 4 years ago and the things he is saying are so much more true and impactful now. It’s scary. We need to act now.

[@mmmk6322]

There has been books about UBI and automation from two decades ago :( I can't believe that Bernie and Warren supporters are dismissing Yang because they either Think the UBI he is proposing is too low, or that the consumption tax is not to their liking, despite the fact that consumption tax is proven to work and force Amazon to pay it and UBI offsets the VAT on the consumer by alot as well as that a grand a month is around 40% of the median income, right on the ballpark of what he says in the video. Andrew Yang is talking reality and solutions, Bernie Bros are talking about achieving a Utopia where you don't have to work a day in your life and still be able to live comfortably. Reality vs Ideology is really gonna determine who will win this election.

[@wtx122e]

YES give me my basic income so I can quit my job ,and play with my RC cars

[@silverlinings3946]

If you hate your job so much, it probably would be for the best.

[@SimondeWeerdt]

Excellent talk, right on the money.

[@jangofet555]

yea i think we would have to limit monetization / profiteering from basic standard of living and survival things like: shelter, food, water, energy, amenities, utilities, transportation, communications. i think the government (ran by the people) should produce and service all of that stuff. and people can work in those sectors if they like those fields, other wise you can do what you want like art, research, or inventing and be funded by non profit common organisations. the common good will inform and guide the right direction. the world is run by the people which are run by their norms which are run by what they choose to feel and express.

[@MaximC]

horizon horizon Exactly, there is *absolutely no reason whatsoever* why a Government couldn't create whatever and however it wants it inside its territory, 100% employment (and *useful* employment, not "just" employment for the sake of it, *IF 100% employment is indeed NECESSARY* ), 100% free shelter, food, water, energy, utilities, transportation, communications etc. People who don't understand this simple fact, are, unfortunately, limited in thinking (and they are not to blame for it, it's just social conditioning and indoctrination at work...).

[@jimbrannlund4677]

Maxim C. 😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂 Millions dead disagree. But I guess they’re just limited in their thinking. 🤣

[@padmanabham.suresham]

This kid is far more intelligent and morally good human being than the current prime minister of India and the voters who voted him to power. If things do not change in next 5 years, you would be reading my name in obituary.

[@williamshafer3199]

I sincerely support your right to a meaningful way of life; greed at the top is so bankrupt :(

[@DavidTitus_]

It's easy to know a basic income would work because a decent welfare program already works, which has good things, like a 'living income' but it also has 2 major flaws: It wants and tries to force everyone to have corporate work which implies: -All jobs are equal (yet only so much of the jobs are really really important, like farmers, architects etc. as opposed to a callcenter marketer). -Freedom is always less important than more (forced) luxury. Which when you think about, it BS. You do work 40 hours a week for something you don't like to do that adds very little to society and is no where near worth your 40 hours.

[@georgeindestructible]

Just with any system, UBI can be tweaked around in order to not be able to be abusable in any way.

[@emlillthings7914]

Or at least, not as abusable as the current system

[@UnixDaemonKiller]

you can get vast amounts of data on basic income from disabled veterans through the VA.

[@weirdwordcombo]

The idea of having to work in order to live in society has always seemed a bit alien to me. Sure humans need something to do or they go crazy, but being forced? Surely every CEO would rather have employees that love what they are doing instead of just doing it for the money..

[@susanyoon288]

ANDREW YANG

[@BestofBadminton]

Rip.

[@VirginiaFitzpatrick]

I have known of two counties that did this : It worked well except people went home and had large families and busted the economy. So one of those countries made a correction and said the state would only support the first 2 children. Problem solved.

[@deathpony698]

Wow this is such a good idea, I can't wait to see how we are gonna pay for it... ... and the video is over.

[@deathpony698]

running a deficit is way more expensive in the long run than fixing it.

[@badenburns9765]

Like the one we have got now?

[@trevinbeattie4888]

The whole point of the video was to invite people to start coming up with ideas on how to implement it, not to tell you how to do it, and certainly not to keep debating why it will or won't work when we don't even have the plan yet.

[@TRUTHandLIGHT4809]

Trevin Beattie--It can't wok. No plan can make it work. The central government robbing people at gun point and giving to another. That is welfare and that keeps people down. Keeps the people that pay for it down also.

[@carlay.brownspokenword8409]

The best I have heard to date on this subject.

[@johnsajo6399]

Yang Gang

[@SteveV1960]

Andrew Yang has my vote!

[@KimMilvang]

I think there are two major hurdles for getting effective data from studies. 1. Income is very much a relative concept. If you give 10k people in a city of 100k a basic income the psychological effect of them having money is very different, than if everyone get the money. There is also the problem that you mentions with the income affecting prices of especially services. 2. As we saw with the communist experiment some of the effects are very long term. Your people watch older people to determine what life choices lead to a good life. One of the problems we are trying to solve, is that people who do not have the skills to compete with automation should still be able to have a good life. If we make major changes in what life choices lead to a good life how will this affect the choices that young people make about their future?

[@Destro7000]

Fantastic to see someone giving a serious consideration of the UBI. It can't be done on its own though as he said, there need to be limits on raising prices in many places. But it could work. I know I will likely be homeless in a few years and this would save me and give me more ability to continue jobhunting or business planning. Can't easily do that on a cold UK street in winter with lack of sleep and no shelter. Not looking forward to it.

[@pedrofaria7451]

+Destro7000 +eople who cant get jobs should have basic income and study in other areas to find jobs, and after that process if the person has job opportunities should accept that job.

[@justanoman6497]

The problem with UBI is that there is no one-size fits all, once you get above an area of say 400 square miles. Cost of living differs drastically from place to place, not just country to country, but state to state or even city to city. And if there are differing amount based on region, there is whole other can of worm. So instead of UBI, I think what would work better is unconditional basic amenities, which will be broken into categories of food, clothing, housing, health care, transport etc. You will get a small monetary reward for any amenity category you do not use (if you use none, basically the UBI), which will be less than the actual value of the amenity. In this case, we won't have to worry about the varying cost of living, because what is provided is essentially "living" disregarding the cost. The problem with that, of course, is the increased management logistic in providing the amenities instead of just a flat sum of money. But... like I said, flat sum will never be "perfect" one way or the other.

[@marijandesin8226]

15:00 Rent control That's what laws are for

[@SpotlightNewMedia]

The ones who control the money; control the people.

[@shoulders-of-giants]

Nobility still exists. Today, we simply call them rich people.

[@omegachungus6543]

巨人の肩 but with capitalism anyone can become rich, now it is hard to become rich but it is possible and that’s what makes capitalism work.

[@kristinacatherine5121]

“That’s what market dictates. You’re just going to put as much as possible as rent, as much as people can afford.” Spoken like someone who doesn't understand economics. He's ignoring the supply side and price elasticity. But I guess it's easy to tell yourself a story that economics is that simple. He's actually somewhat right about that result, but in terms of generalized inflation, rather than wealth being redistributed to the wealthy.

[@noice9163]

Yang gang 2020

[@giantsbane8439]

The problem with using the Scandinavian countries as a model for successful UBI that should be applied to the US and other countries is the massive cultural differences between the two. These Scandinavian welfare systems that work so great for their own citizens quickly began failing when put under the stress of an excess number of people not working and contributing to the system. I think UBI has the possibility to work, but it has to be done right, and the speaker brings up a very good point in that the moral and ideological questions are completely irrelevant.

[@allyvanandel2233]

11:06 lol, speaking of ideology, that right was inserted in the UN charter when the US and USSR were haggling over the content. The USSR wanted this because ... they were socialists. Refreshingly rare to see someone engage social issues using reason and evidence and specifically excluding ideology though. This is the only way we will ever begin to solve some of humanity's biggest challenges.

[@couchpoet1]

Three of some of the things we need to survive in the future... 1: critical thinking 2: humility 3: honesty 4: empathy Without these four simple things, life and all the tech and advancements are pointless. We don't know ourselves STILL!! Our fear will be our end if we do not have empathy for another being suffering or the honesty to fight the uncomfortable feeling of being wrong with the opportunity to learn the whole story without generational programming! Have a good day!

[@WindTunnelRacing]

All you Need is Critical Thinking. Which Ayn Rand, Thomas Sowell, Walter Williams and Milton Friedman were the Best at. All Supremely Pro-Capitalists. And Empathy only leads you to make wasteful decisions. Worry about YOU and Your family. The rest will take care of itself. And honesty? Most aren't. If You are, you're falling behind the system.

[@eventhisidistaken]

The first job intelligent robots need to replace, is politicians. Only then might I trust collectivist solutions. Otherwise, we can be guaranteed that the political class that causes the ever increasing wealth in gap, will not continue to do so.

[@alexanderreusens7633]

What about a direct democracy? I mean, we have the technology, we will have the time if robots are doing our jobs,... Why not?

[@eventhisidistaken]

I'd rather have robots ruling over me than corrupt politicians or my idiot neighbors. But if my only choices were corrupt politicians elected by my idiot neighbors, vs my idiot neighbors directly, I guess I'd choose the idiot neighbors. At least in most cases, their needs and desires are more likely to align with mine than those of corrupt politicians.

[@trevinbeattie4888]

That's a nice dream; the only difficulty is that the AI has to be programmed somehow by somebody, and while we've figured out how to teach AI how to perform mechanical tasks, analyze data, and recognize patterns, teaching a machine the ethics needed for policy making is still a long way beyond what we're capable of. I think the best we can hope for is to use AI as a tool for evidence-based legislation.

[@richardroberts3719]

and lawyers that way everyone gets the best legal aid instead of just the wealthy.

[@Fuar11]

Exactly! But on a large scale in large nations it may not work, even with technology. Think about hacking. meddling, corruption etc..

[@markandrew4974]

If they enact UBI, business will just rise prices and take the money given by UBI, We need to do exactly like big business like those Cooperate take overs, when the bigger businesses put out of business the small mom and pop stores, we need to boycott all big business and Put out of business all big business that is not helping out the people, which will happen because people are so greedy....

[@Jon-br8co]

YangGang!!!!! We need UBI in America!

[@sergkapitan2578]

Let us do it and do it quickly!!!!!!!!

[@kenjimiwa3739]

Yang2020!!!

[@jamesanton8912]

I have seen almost every single ted talk about this over 120

[@mcdermid12]

I don't know about everyone else, but if I had a basic income that was enough to live on, I would just quit my job, quit school, and stay at home and play video games. I know a bunch of people who would do the same thing as me, so this system would collapse pretty quickly. Infrastructure would collapse. Who would want to work the dirty jobs if they didn't have to?

[@remcolaken9502]

dirty jobs should be payed much better than , you then really become rich when you are doing a dirty job ,thats more fair right?When you stop working and go gaming all day you will never get to buy al the games that you love or the console that you love with just a basic income , things go broke in your house you need to be able to buy a new freezer or tv , you can not pay for that with just a basic income, you also cannot pay for a good vacation with just a basic income , you also have to put money aside for your pension , basic income should not be enough for that , so you would go to work right? i would. i would emmediatly start by buying a better car of the money i get from work , with basic income i cannot even ride a car, just think about it the right way

[@mcdermid12]

+Remco Laken you're probably right, but I was mad at the time of writing this because I had to watch this and many other videos for homework and was being negative in my thinking. Although I don't think the UBI would work economically, I do believe tax loopholes need to be closed on the wealthy so they pay their fair share.

[@CockatooDude]

Because whatever money you earned from your job would be added on top of your basic income. And we all like getting paid more. However it's nice to be able to get paid more with the option to quit anytime if you so desire, and still have enough money to get by.

[@nayandusoruth2468]

Perhaps this would be the norm for you and many others for months, but science points out that humans require meaning to remain satisfied. This would make individuals work because they want to. And your talking about a large UBI, if you consider a minimum basic income, then it acts as a floor of of which people can build, and would always give them a fall back if a risky decision doesn't pay off.

[@tibne2412]

You would burn out of games quickly and just take some token job to get out of the house, the best thing about UBI is need not do it out of need.

[@jeffxanders3990]

Andrew Yang is the one. I stand, always in the middle and don't give two hoots about politics, until now.

[@j00ktau]

KZbin and google Andrew Yang!

[@maxwell10206]

Starting at 14:35 I got a little confused. I sort of get the whole rent idea that if everyone got $1000 the landlords can jack up the price to cash in on that, but then he starts talking about how that wouldn't happen because privatization of Healthcare and other programs we've seen have been worse? Could someone explain what he was trying to say?

[@_Wai_Wai_]

Aliens will look at us and ask why it took these creatures so long to make UBI a reality

[@MrDANGitall]

I am an alien and I approve of this message. 👀

[@soorajnair150]

@@MrDANGitall i believe you

[@slobodanarodu2005]

In the example of the 1000 Euros, is not the basic income that leads to inequality but the decision taken by the landlords. Landlord activity should be restricted in terms of how many properties they can buy and how much they can charge occupants.

[@friggindoc]

How about universal basic jobs?

[@benjamincarrasco3658]

Most of the common jobs in the US will be replaced by automation in the next 10-15 years. And let me just point out the obvious. What if you don't ike the job? What if your boss is terrible? What if you need to move, just for the sake of an useless job? What we must avoid is the government providing artificial made-up jobs, just so people can survive. There is no freedom there. UBI will give people more buying power and economic freedom to pick the right job or leave an job.

[@JockeyJT]

Trials will be of limited use if they do not have a lifelong guarantee. Few people will throw away good career prospects for a temporary adventure.

[@ubuu7]

He kind of sounds like Dr Nick from the simpsons, my favorite accent.

[@IbelieveinHarveyDent]

Hey everybody

[@ShimmyMD]

Very well put together. Great job!

[@veganath]

UBI is a band aid solution a transitional measure to realizing our true human potential. To fully leverage our science and automation technology today, we need to start designing entire integrated city systems, as opposed to the inefficient adhoc cities of today, city systems that are autonomous to the extent that our automation technology permits so as to providing it's human residence the necessities of life for free. People don't need jobs, what they need is access to the necessities of life, deny people access and u have social unrest. Please people check out the life work of 100 year old Jacque Fresco. Please if you haven't already done so view the documentaries "Paradise or Oblivion", "Future By Design", "The Choice Is Ours 2016". An elder with that much life experience deserves at least a few hours of our time....?

[@mpmitchell2112]

I used to think that too... until i went out and learned basic economics.

[@veganath]

Mike Mitchell in our current socioeconomic system, how will you solve technological unemployment? How will you solve crime & corruption? How will you solve environmental degradation? How will you prevent our greatest admission to failure 'war'?

[@mpmitchell2112]

veganath FYI...loved the "war - failure" question!! The answer to all of those is: free markets... but I elaborated a bit "in our current socioeconomic system, how will you solve technological unemployment?" there is no such thing. Technology creates more jobs than it destroys. For example, when the light bulb came out, yes, many candle makers lost their job - OMG technological unemployment!. But many many many more jobs were created not only in the light bulb industry, but in other industries need to expand or be created to supply the lighbulb industry with their raw materials, miners and glass makers and such. Many more people are/were employed by the light bulb industry thank in the candle making industry. If the tech unemployment people were around in those days, we would have the government passing laws outlawing light bulbs because of the unemployment it creates in the candle making sector. Now instead of lightbulbs, do the same thought experiment with any other technology. The key to understanding economics is to look not only as what is seen (candle makers being put out of work) and look at the unseen (lightbulb factories, miners mining the ground for tungsten, copper, the metal used in the bottom screwy part lol, etc.). You can only say technology destroys jobs if you ignore the almost infinitely greater amount of jobs it creates. "How will you solve crime & corruption?" just like there is a market for shoes, plumbing, entertainment, and cars, etc., there is a market for fair decision making and property protection. Instead of one monopoly providing those services that gets its revenue from taxation... they are provided by competing companies that need to convince you to keep making voluntary payments in exchange for service. "How will you solve environmental degradation? " enforcement of property rights... if i dump garbage on your lawn right now, obviously thats illegal. But how is that different than my factory depositing super fine pollution particles on your lawn or in your air (or lake or river whatever)? its not, the market would treat them the same. Pollution is presently an issue of the government not properly enforcing property rights. Same for the lakes oceans, rivers, etc., same thing, but first ownership of them needs to pass from public to private hands. "How will you prevent our greatest admission to failure 'war'?" replacing coercive government with voluntary market institutions would minimize war. Governments go crazy during war because they have unlimited funding (aside from when the people revolt), they either tax or print what they need. Although war might still exist in free market utopia land, it would certainly be minimized with more financial restraints placed on it. Governments are currently able to pass on the costs of war to the populace. In a free market, those who wanted to conduct war would be forced to bear the full cost, which tends to make people think twice. Not saying it can be eliminated, but definitely minimized.

[@mpmitchell2112]

David Haakonsen "Examples is worthless. Give real numbers if you want to prove something." Lol, In other words, you have absolutely zero rebuttal to the arguments I raised. You are trying to assert without any justification that those examples are worthless because they smash your loony argument. This is why understanding basic economics is so important. its simple logic and any economist worth his salt will tell so. If your theory were true, then we would all be unemployed right now. 95% of americans were farmers 200 years ago. Has the population increased since 1800? has there been a shit ton of new technology introduced since 1800? are their more jobs now than in 1800? if they answer to those is "yes", then you need to discard that absurd theory, end of story, case closed. You don't need cardinal numbers to show how ridiculous it is. You need to explain, given that population and technology have both rapidly increased over the years, why we are currently not all unemployed... because that is what your tech unemployment theory says. "Try googeling employment to population ratio. If you still think technology creates more jobs than it destroys, you know you just try to keep your capitalism bubble alive." do you really not see the problem with thinking about it like that? you implicitly assume there that ALL unemployment is due to technology. long term unemployment is due to two factors: minimum wage laws and unemployment insurance/benefits. Get rid of those, and there will not be any more unemployment. Both of those are government interventions into an otherwise free market economy btw. Short term unemployment, aside from the regular shifts of companies growing and shrinking, is due to the business cycle, which is not something inherent in a capitalist economy, it comes form government central bank money printing.

[@mpmitchell2112]

David Haakonsen "Even if we all still where farmers, jobs would incrase with population. So more total jobs now compared to 1800, isnt an argument for tecnologies making more jobs. Its just a statement of the obvious, a bigger population needs higher production. Thats why we need to look at population to employment ratio." that is putting the cart before the horse there. The only reason the population could increase in the first place is because of higher productivity which leads to increased production. Production has to happen first before the pop can increase. you straw-manned my argument... its not more jobs + more people = no tech unemployment. You left out a key part there that destroys your logic. My argument was: more people + more jobs + more technology = no tech unemployment. you left out the more technology part, idk why, but its not cool to strawman like that. Because according to the tech unemployment theory, its supposed to destroy jobs, so it flies against that theory that we had tremendous increases in tech and pop, and also tremendous increases in jobs. It certainly destroys some jobs.... the candle makers lost their jobs when the light bulb came out, the horse n buggy makers lost jobs when the car came out... but many more jobs exist in the car and light bulb industries than did in the buggy and candle industries. So while a few jobs were destroyed, many many many more were created. Without those techs, those jobs couldn't exist. Besides, nobody is entitled to be a candle maker or buggy maker, so who cares id peoples valuations make it evident through the price system that they no longer value candles and buggies and that the people making those things should stop and go make something else that people actually do value still. "And like I predicted, you ignored the facts, and just rambling along in your ideologybubble." so its not a fact that we have way more tech and way more jobs with way more people than we used to? I know... I'm just stuck in this bubble of logical thought, and i can't get out. Its like, I'm immune to even the most common economic fallacies. "You obviously dont know anyting about how economics work." Hello Pot, I'm Kettle. Nice to meet you. "If wages and benefits drop, customers cant afford the products prodused, and production drops." do you not see the fallacy there? you are implicitly assuming that selling prices of products cannot adjust. Do you admit that prices adjust? If so, kindly throw out that fallacious argument.