What you think, is universal basic income right?

youtube.com/watch?v=kl39KHS07Xc
What you think, is universal basic income right?

Attached: 105778458-1551898510556andrew_yang_2.jpg (1920x1080, 104.43K)

Other urls found in this thread:

williamzfoster.blogspot.com/2013/01/chapter-twenty-two-broad-democratic.html
paulcockshott.wordpress.com/2017/01/25/what-is-wrong-with-the-idea-of-basic-income/
twitter.com/SFWRedditImages

UBI is a tool used by capitalist to pay off the working class to not revolt.
If the proletariat are reliant on UBI to survive then they are less likely to change the system.

Also we have a US politics containment thread post there.

ubi is inherently anit-socialist because it's just a tool for the government to ease class tension.

This will continue the separation between the poor and middle class because Yang is thinking of giving everyone only 1k and if you receive welfare like EBT it will take away from your 1k. So fuck this guy for wanting to give 1k to the rich and give less to the poor.

This will only give the bourgeoisie more time and power. They will outsource their production even more if they get taxed on automation.
It will also be easier to fire people since they have something to fall back on.

Read William Z. Foster's "History of the Communist Party of the United States" and the part where he talks about the "panacea" mass movements of the 1930s like Howard Scott's "technocracy" movement, the Ham & Eggs, and Share Our Wealth.

williamzfoster.blogspot.com/2013/01/chapter-twenty-two-broad-democratic.html

Attached: panacea.png (686x1942, 421.25K)

So he is saying the new deal was good or that it was a panacea policy so it killed the panacea movements?

He didn't really give one reason why a "panacea" movement is bad. He just tossed out the words fascism and demagogue.

Is the rest of this guy's writing better?

In social democratic terms, if done correctly it would be an enhancement of the welfare state and make it more efficient, which would have the knock on positive social effects. It could also however amount to a sweeping benefits cut and do the opposite.

In revolutionary terms, perhaps if there was UBI strikes could be more effective, although it would also to a certain extent "buy off" a lot of people. In may also however normalise the idea that the economy should be socialised so that everyone has their basic needs met, which is what UBI is supposed to do, when they saw its limits are failures, still with the idea that everyones basic needs were met, they may want or be ready for something for radical like universal basic services.

It would probably also stimulate growth in the Keynesian sense.

what do you think about the idea that if the more people are fired or choose not to work at all, ever again, and simply live off UBI, the labour market pool would get smaller and therefore wages would rise

I doubt that the labor pool would shrink that much and even if ot did they would just get more immigrants. I do think Yang's statements that ot would give workers more support to switch careers, move, or just plain old quit a shitty job might be true. I don't know why the leftypol-orthodoxy on this seems to be completely accelerationist.

And the higher turnover might incentivize employers to give more raises to the workers I meant too add. And decreased worker loyalty could in turn help with strikes etc.

He is saying the New Deal was good and so were many of the panacea movements (the ones not led by fascist demagogues like Charles Coughlin anyways).

I think it's really epic. The solution to our problems is asking our lord for some more scraps and everything will be fine.

But that assumes people will start businesses and hire people. Why would someone risk starting a business if they could just hang out instead. The small business market will be destroyed. Why would someone start a landscaping business or become a carpenter when sitting on your ass pays the bills? Why would they want to flip burgers or ring up items for customers?

There is such a lack of foresight with you leftist people and your ideas.
It's like every day is your first day. Do you people ever retain knowledge or do you cast away everything when the the new thing arrives?

Because you get more money from working dipshit. Why would anyone choose to start a business and take on more responsibilities than a regular 9 to 5? How retarded are you?

Is this post why the thread got anchored? The mods are so afraid of the "the problem with free stuff…" meme? Pathetic. Why can't we have at least one UBI containment thread? You mods let nazi threads go for hundreds of posts but anchor ubi threads after ten.

We're not even advocating for UBI, learn to fucking read. But there is a VERY simple principle that safety nets are good for our well-being. UBI experiments have shown how the employment rate did not decrease but did increase school enrollment. Even older people would go to pick up some new skills, when people aren't struggling to get by they can work on their self-development more. Straight up NEETery is unhealthy but I don't think it's unreasonable to say that free education and reduced working hours would have far-reaching societal benefits. This is also why UBI is dumb, even within a capitalist framework it'd be better to offer free education in kind and strengthen collective bargaining to reduce hours and increase wages instead of trying to do the same by handing out UBI.

Yawn, get some new material - you sound like a Koch drone.

Attached: l4d2 boomer.jpg (376x349, 20.72K)

The reason for the anchor is

If its because of the US politics containment thread that's a dumb reason because UBI is not an America specific topic. The rest of that shitty post I gave counter arguments to but I guess the modsvare too afraid to debate.

paulcockshott.wordpress.com/2017/01/25/what-is-wrong-with-the-idea-of-basic-income/

It's lifestylism. And that's exactly what they want: "read your Marx all you want, as long as you turn it into a fashion accessory."