UBI, or universal basic income, is a form of direct cash assistance to help the most vulnerable get back on their feet. A new study in Denver suggests it works.
Like the one recent CEO saying the quiet part aloud by saying government should promote higher unemployment, since in the high employment environment employees aren't desperate and have more demands costing him money. That employees arent feeling enough pain and despair in economy.
To be fair, this isn't that far away from the economic theory underlying using interest rates to manage inflation - it's just phrased in a different way.
That's the problem with fractional reserve banking it's making up money for those who lend theirs. It's about extracting value from those who work for those who accumulate. It's not a tbf, it's a this is also an issue in every area of our society.
But if we raised the bottom up enough, it wouldn't really matter if they were on the bottom. Many people would be happy if they had a stable place to live, food, healthcare, and freedom, and many don't really need or even want "more" all the time. The problem is the vast differences in wealth and ownership.
If someone has "more" then yes of course someone needs to have "less", merely by definition.
The question is really whether those with less are living below the poverty line or living comfortably. I guess it's a question of semantics whether "capitalism" requires people to be living below the poverty line but I don't think it does. It's just shitty regulations which allow wealth to become as concentrated as it has.
Socialism in principle sounds great, but most times it's been implemented it's suffered from the same problem as capitalism - the people with power are greedy and use their power to manipulate and oppress the populace.
Socialism in principle sounds great, but most times it's been implemented it's suffered from the same problem as capitalism - the people with power are greedy and use their power to manipulate and oppress the populace.
This is true, the "dictatorship of the proletariat" is self-contradictory and impossible IMHO. Because as soon as a member of the proletariat is a dictator, they are now no longer a member of the proletariat.
Now you don't need a dictator, you can enact socialist policies democratically. This is very slow and kind of difficult, because the capitalists will lobby and fight so hard against it, and you need to maintain public support.
That isnt what dictatorship of the proletariat means. It means that the former bourgeoisie are temporarily politically disenfranchised from proletarian democracy
German politics and energy consumption aside, I think they have the best base of knowledge for what your proposed economic model has in store for them and their allies. They had that model forced upon them, and fought for change and economic freedom. There was a freaking wall dividing their country over that.
Conservatism is built on hierarchy. Capitalism just says markets work and investment is gambling. You can do that and still keep everyone fed / clothed / sheltered, specifically because markets work, and can make food / clothes / shelter more plentiful. Some people having more doesn't require private space station versus duplex cardboard box.
Conservatives only say market failure demands misery and successful gambling means unchecked power because that's what they always say. That's their only conclusion, applied to literally everything. That's how conservatives think things work. The entire tribal worldview boils down to "well somebody's gotta be king." Just a fractal pyramid of militaries over empire, rulers over courts, owners over workers, and patriarchs over families. If you're at the bottom you're lucky to be alive, and how dare you question your betters.
The unspoken assumption is that change is impossible. This is genuinely how they think everything works. Like the universe itself dictates a steep gradient, and the only way things could be different is by shuffling around who goes where. So if someone is suffering, they must have fucked up to deserve it, and if you want to help them, you're putting someone else in their place.
In most cases, yes; but in this case in particular, with UBI increasing the buying power of the poor, those with capital would actually profit off of implementing such a service. No, this one boils down to good old fashioned classism.
Those with capital profit off of not doing so.
Like the one recent CEO saying the quiet part aloud by saying government should promote higher unemployment, since in the high employment environment employees aren't desperate and have more demands costing him money. That employees arent feeling enough pain and despair in economy.
To be fair, this isn't that far away from the economic theory underlying using interest rates to manage inflation - it's just phrased in a different way.
That's the problem with fractional reserve banking it's making up money for those who lend theirs. It's about extracting value from those who work for those who accumulate. It's not a tbf, it's a this is also an issue in every area of our society.
Ok we can all clearly see there’s a problem, what action should we take to effectively solve it?
There's the fight club method but good people generally avoid being terrorists…
I recently heard it phrased like this:
Capitalism is built on hierarchy, which means someone fundamentally NEEDS to be at the bottom. There is no way around it, someone needs to suffer.
But if we raised the bottom up enough, it wouldn't really matter if they were on the bottom. Many people would be happy if they had a stable place to live, food, healthcare, and freedom, and many don't really need or even want "more" all the time. The problem is the vast differences in wealth and ownership.
That’s a fair point. But in a world that values money above all else, that’s not just a divide in wealth and ownership but a divide in power.
The problem is you can't exploit comfortable people, so the uber rich would only be super rich, and that's not good enough for them…
I don't think that this is really true.
If someone has "more" then yes of course someone needs to have "less", merely by definition.
The question is really whether those with less are living below the poverty line or living comfortably. I guess it's a question of semantics whether "capitalism" requires people to be living below the poverty line but I don't think it does. It's just shitty regulations which allow wealth to become as concentrated as it has.
Socialism in principle sounds great, but most times it's been implemented it's suffered from the same problem as capitalism - the people with power are greedy and use their power to manipulate and oppress the populace.
This is true, the "dictatorship of the proletariat" is self-contradictory and impossible IMHO. Because as soon as a member of the proletariat is a dictator, they are now no longer a member of the proletariat.
Now you don't need a dictator, you can enact socialist policies democratically. This is very slow and kind of difficult, because the capitalists will lobby and fight so hard against it, and you need to maintain public support.
That isnt what dictatorship of the proletariat means. It means that the former bourgeoisie are temporarily politically disenfranchised from proletarian democracy
I wish all .de instances a very get off my federation
Amazing.
German politics and energy consumption aside, I think they have the best base of knowledge for what your proposed economic model has in store for them and their allies. They had that model forced upon them, and fought for change and economic freedom. There was a freaking wall dividing their country over that.
Don't shitpost on good discussion please.
Daily reminder that Germany never underwent denazification
He's referring to post-WW2 East Germany being controlled by the USSR you absolute gonk.
I gotta start using that!
I was being charitable. That's even worse. Flat out support of nazi germany.
Lol where??
East germans, especially women and lgbt people, lost a lot of practical rights during reunification
Conservatism is built on hierarchy. Capitalism just says markets work and investment is gambling. You can do that and still keep everyone fed / clothed / sheltered, specifically because markets work, and can make food / clothes / shelter more plentiful. Some people having more doesn't require private space station versus duplex cardboard box.
Conservatives only say market failure demands misery and successful gambling means unchecked power because that's what they always say. That's their only conclusion, applied to literally everything. That's how conservatives think things work. The entire tribal worldview boils down to "well somebody's gotta be king." Just a fractal pyramid of militaries over empire, rulers over courts, owners over workers, and patriarchs over families. If you're at the bottom you're lucky to be alive, and how dare you question your betters.
The unspoken assumption is that change is impossible. This is genuinely how they think everything works. Like the universe itself dictates a steep gradient, and the only way things could be different is by shuffling around who goes where. So if someone is suffering, they must have fucked up to deserve it, and if you want to help them, you're putting someone else in their place.
In most cases, yes; but in this case in particular, with UBI increasing the buying power of the poor, those with capital would actually profit off of implementing such a service. No, this one boils down to good old fashioned classism.
And make sure their propaganda gets pushed as truth and that any opposition to it will lead to genocide and prison camps