@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..
@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)
@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.
@@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.
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.
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.
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.
+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?
+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.
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.
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.
@@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.
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!
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.
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.
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.....
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.
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.
+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.
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.
Mmm argument on inflation was not given justice and therefore should not have been included. There is sufficient economic theory suggesting that UBI would not necessarily lead to inflation or hyperinflation, especially given that there would not be more money printed. The money is still the same it is just redistributed.
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.'
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.
+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.
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!
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.
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.
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.
Does anyone consider inflation? Will this be given to citizens only? How much is $1,000 worth if everyone has it? Yes, We have record high unemployements now. I just wish both sides spoke on this more. Because it can be manipulated if the wrong side does...
This is called scarcity mindset. The short answer is no. Printing new money and pumping into the system would cause inflation. The dividend that Yang is proposing isnt printing new money. Its essentially an added sales tax that feeds directly into a permanent fund that pays out the dividend. Its just recycling already existing resources and re-purposing them to benefit the consumer. Fun fact: we printed out $4 trillion dollars to bail out the banks. The people got nothing back from that.
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.
Your idea is more profoundly developed in the following documentaries "Paradise or Oblivion" or "The Choice Is Ours 2016" or "Future By Design". Please view these films, they are the culmination of the lifes work of 100yr old Jacque Fresco. An elder with this much life experience deserves a few hours of our life....
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.
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..
One lunacy at the heart of the current system concerns the NHS. They are the largest consumer of energy and pay for it. I read it's apprx £750m just passported every year from the public purse via NHS to the private energy suppliers. We might call this 'hard' capitalism. A better deal is needed.
Some of these maybe, but in many cases it is probably more efficient to just transfer money to people and let them shop in the free market like we do now. If property owners can charge as much as people can afford, it doesn't seem to me that it would matter much whether people can afford higher rent due to a cash infusion or due to getting free food. So I doubt this solves that problem. Of course, if there is only one market where power is so unbalanced (but this seems unlikely) it would be worth considering entering that market to provide free basic service/product. Like providing basic but ok free housing. Not that I know how this could be done. But there's a hint in here: The problem of financial inequality is closely related to inequality in terms of power. And it's not just what we traditionally think of as "market power" either - unless that includes things like using law suits to harass (like the Church of Scientology successfully did to stop the IRS' attempt to tax them) or lobbying for regulation (as happens all the time). Some have argued that democracy can be saved by making it far more widespread, such as by mandating profit sharing between the owners and employees in a corporation and giving employees influence also in deciding what the corporation is for, it's strategy and so on - matters currently in theory the shareholders' turf, but realistically largely under the control of management/executives who are supposed to act on behalf of shareholders. It will probably not be easy. The wealthy few after all have most of the resources. But the problem is systemic, and many wealthy people may welcome change, even change that makes them less powerful. At least I hope so.
Some oil rich countries try that. Executive summary: when you have almost free electricity you don't mind keeping light turned on 24h or powerful but inefficient air conditioning. (that was the aim, right? ;) ) Needless to say, rich people have more electricity requiring devices, thus benefit from such system more.
It's funny that we need more studies about UBI, but "trickle down" which we invest a lot into doesn't need that, despite the fact that it clearly isn't working
UBI doesnt go far enough. We are slowed by budgets and allowancrs. We are brilliant as a specie. What is needed is intelligent MANAGEMENT of the resources. The Venus Project !!
UBI isn't free enough We are slowed by the capitalists We are co-operative as a species What we need is workers owned means of production Free Market Socialism!
i found the following about absolute poverty. It sounds like quite a success story to me: “According to United Nations estimates, in 2015 roughly 734 million people or 10% remained under those conditions [absolut poverty]. The number had previously been measured as 1.9 billion in 1990, and 1.2 billion in 2008.”. My question: Why should we fix a system which delivers such positive results?
Where I'm hesitant about further experimentation: Even when you have a large sample size (>10,000), all of those people continue to exist in a society where the vast majority are NOT on UBI, and therefore the experiment doesn't give you a good idea about what happens when EVERYONE is on UBI. For example, if I was on UBI, I would feel a lot freer about quitting my job and finding a new one if I didn't like my coworkers. But if EVERYONE was on UBI, and therefore EVERYONE felt free to quit if they didn't like their coworkers, would businesses experience very high turnover? And if so, would that bankrupt a lot of smaller businesses who can't afford to continuously recruit/train/retain new employees? Would that greatly harm workplace diversity? And if so, would that necessarily harm society? Maybe, maybe not, but you'd have to test an entire society to get a sense of whether that'd be the case.
Or better example: Let's say that you can give superpowers to everybody in the world. But as an experiment, you give superpowers to only 1% of the population to see what happens. And then you observe that that 1% of the population become superheroes, and everybody loves them, and they become rich and famous and all that. Does it follow that giving superpowers to EVERYBODY would make EVERYBODY rich and famous? Of course not. That's not to say it's a bad idea, just that you can't really experiment with it. The only way to experiment is to actually do it.
We should add to these studies, the GCC countries where there is a kind of UBI and a lot of foreigners working instead of the local population!!!! The question is what will a person do with this additional money that is given; will he create more value to society? or the other way around?
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?
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
+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.
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.
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.
He didn't answer his question about the rent through, and I don't see UBI has anything to do with the capital return rate. About the rent, I think the government should build a large amount of public housing at low cost, if the landlord raises the rent too much, people could just move to public housing.
Can some one tell me - if we were to go to a universal basic income - where would the money come from? Not trying to stir up trouble, it's a legitimate question. Do you tax the basic income? Tax everyone? Only give it to those who need it, or to everyone... this just seems much more complicated with effects that aren't anticipated.
A general UBI for every citizen of a western Country, is ( atm. ) cheaper than no UBI, because a UBI deletes social security, the basic pension, food stamps, rent subsidies and the entire complicated ( social ) machinery that has to constantly check and recheck everyone. If you are for the UBI, probably depends on what you think will benefit you, but for people employed by the Government with jobs that supervise ( poorer ) citizens, like food stamp controllers and even the IRS, a UBI is a disaster, because ( for example ) in the USA, at least 10 million social controller jobs will disappear. The good thing is, the unemployed social workers, controllers ( even hospital staff to some extent ) will receive ( at least ) the general UBI themselves. Meaning that Federico is wrong on the point of battling "technical unemployment", but unemployment is also the wrong point. A general UBI will increase unemployment in a constructive way. I.e. Even more goods and services can be produced by fewer people, without losing the consumer base. "Who/what" will pay for the UBI ? Well. Exactly the same "entity" that pays for everything now, but minus the controllers. And. That's why it won't happen anytime soon, because the bureaucracy is in power and it doesn't want to get self unemployed, because powerful people ( or people that perceive themselves are powerful ) are scared of unemployment for the wrong reason. Unemployment is widely misunderstood and stigmatized.
Interesting analysis, who watches the watchman??? An accountant will never get rid of his OWN job by declaring himself redundant. The fact that for a lot of people it is now more costly to force them into employment due to the delicate and complex nature of modern processes and procedures and is often cheaper for government and companies to ignore them as a potential source of labour and pay them off with a basic income. The extra costs of supervision, coercion and monitoring are often greater than the net return on an increasingly large portion of society. Ireland has tried with some success to reactivate longterm unemployed by forcing them to attend simplistic job seeking programs, form filling, looking up non existent jobs online on outdated PC's that don't even have basic word processing apps on them. Many claimants simply give up claiming or else emigrate sometime illegally to the US, Canada and elsewhere to escape the madness. The program can be seen as a cynical success in that it has got rid of a lot of long term unemployed claimants but will the government be re-elected???
I find it astonishing that UBI has become a thing before LVT and the single tax. The single tax is the fix of all fixes, UBI would be just one in a cascade of positive outcomes.
UBI would crash the value of the currency being used any services that are price to buy with UBI would eventually be raised to the point where you would either have to raise the UBI or you would not be able to afford the "basic" needs. This leads to again the continued race of UBI, given out by a hopefully responsible and benevolent government, and base cost. I disagree with Mr. Pistono when he attempts to truncate down any questions on this subject to only questions that deal with a pro UBI aftermath so only allowing arguments of how he believes it might be implemented not whether this idea is sound.
15:34 - "We know what happens when You privatize health care. It's a very bad idea" - Oh, FUCK OFF. There were many things which were close to triggering me in his sepach but by this statement his whole credibility just flew out of the window.
+kewlkey Fender No it wasn't. The way leftist claim Milton Friedman "invented" or "proposed" basic income is misleading. He didn't propose because he though it was a good idea. He described it like this: "Look. If You really, really, REALLY, need a welfare in society then I suppose You can do it like this [Insert basic income description]." And even then it was proposed as an transient system with free market still being final destination. So yeah, in this context saying "In fact it was Milton Fiedman who proposed idea of basic income" really rustled my jimmies
+EgonCom Why react so angrily to that statement? If you look at countries like America it's clearly true. Terrible healthcare to GDP ratio and the WHO doesn't even rank them well for what they're paying. They're being ripped off.
+AnnoyedDragon America has had socialized healthcare for decades. As you correctly pointed out, this experiment in socialized healthcare has been a disaster.
The US already has a Basic Income system which includes housing, food stamps, metro pass , a cell phone and more. This is a living real time example. Let's study that system and compare the data. It's been around for years with tons of data.
+Hugo Fernandes I am a real estate appraiser, so I have some RE knowledge. In most places there would be much less demand for substandard housing, so rents there would drop; however, that would mean more demand for decent housing which would push rents up for most people. In the US in particular, where the school your kid goes to is heavily dependent on where you live, there would be quite a bit of flight from those places with that same substandard housing as those areas are associated with crap schools. On the other hand, supply and demand would still function, and poorer areas would see a great boom in their economy making them better places to live; and the slumlords would have to improve their housing stock in order to compete. Net-net, there would probably be some inflation, not just in rents but in other basic needs. In turn more demand -> more supply -> economic growth and higher wages. So long as the basic income kept up with inflation it would be a win-win.
ㅋㅋㅋㅋㅋ That would be true in the oversimplified world of classical economics. Classical economics does a poor job of describing the real world. In the real world, landlords would use their tenant's desire to not have to move to push up the rent, figuring that they can get more, and in most cases being right. Also, in a more classical sense, demand would go up as the homeless would look for apartments. The rental market, as with most real-estate markets is not particularly efficient, and the friction almost always favors the landlord.
For the inflation argument, let us imagine a closed system with 10 widgets, 10 people each with $10 Now let say the widgets can now be created by automation ie, basically, there is no limit to the amount of its production. In that scenario, there would be no inflation as there is essentially an unlimited supply of widgets, the unit price can remain the same regardless of the demand. The only bottleneck to the number of transactions in this system is the amount of money in circulation.
The timeline is off, but greater automation is almost here. Certainly here by the 2030's. Automation may cause deflation, but loss of jobs. Greater productivity, at a lower cost, with possibly lower priced items. UBI may cause inflation, but temporary relief. People raising the prices of items, inflation, will definitely be a problem. It's what occurred after the Covid stimulus spending in the US. Could a balance be reached where they cancel each other out? The inflation above already occurs, the cause is called government spending. The deflation above also already occurs driven by technological progress, or automation.
Inequality is not an indication that there is something about capitalism that needs "fixed". Inequality of income is simply a reflection of the fact that ople are born with massive inequality - inequality of talent, inequality of skill, inequality of ambition, etc. etc. Why are we dismayed to discover that all of those inequalities result in inequality of income and wealth? UBI is based on the erroneous idea that there is only a finite amount of beneficial work to be performed.
Rent (including rent on money i.e. interest) is the real root problem here in the first place, and an even better UBI system than already proposed would be to fund UBI from a tax on rent income (meaning that people who pay rent have a negative income and "pay" a negative tax i.e. actually get even more money). This will discourage renting, leading to the selling-off of rental housing at prices and terms that the now-renters can afford, since that's the only remaining way for the landowners to profit off their land and escape the rental tax. Bam, problem solved.
LemonPieLoL Well...I don't know what you mean by capitalism.......but I only support free trade. Free trade does not kill anyone (except a few accidents which happen anywhere and in any system) If you know of a time when free trade killed millions of people in a country....then I would love to hear about it......but I will be waiting a while as you don't have any facts to back up your claims
I have a problem understanding ownership of capital. Is it working capital or farting capital? Can capital work outside of society? Can capital work in society without benefiting society?
So by ideology you mean people who are just trying to stick to their favorite ideology without looking at facts or evidence and not everybody who is sticking to an ideology. What is wrong with morality? We should always try to do what is right.
IF PEOPLE HAD BASIC INCOME, HOUSING, HEALTH CARE AND EDUCATION IT WOULD GIVE PEOPLE A CHANCE AND TIME TO CREATE ADDITIONAL JOBS AND OR PRODUCTS OR WOULD WE HAVE A LAZY SOCIETY?
Great! And the groups who continued working, I assume middle aged people with good jobs. Were they also TAXED accordingly to pay for the ubi? For example a person who makes $150,000 a year. Did they get TAXED an extra $30,000 a year to get back $6000 a year to pay for the women having kids and young men not working? I highly doubt it or else they would never participate. So like all government programs you have to force productive people to participate to subsidize unproductive people.
BlancGivre the UBI proposed here is a band aid solution a transitional measure to realizing our true human potential. The socioeconomic system of the future will be unlike any 'ism' of the past! Money is no longer the most efficient means of resource management, that title goes to the 'direct' application of our science, think IoT(Internet of Things). 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 check out the life work of 100 year old Jacque Fresco. Also 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....?
Hi, Thanks for the recommendations! I truly agree with you that UBI is not a solution as such. I was merely suggesting that if govs do opt for a UBI, that it should be calculated based on automation and robotization productivity metrics. Otherwise, the economy of our current time is not going to be performing well (expensive products produced mechanically, but which fewer and fewer people can afford). Of course this is a Band-Aid solution and not one that I personally am necessarily in favor of. On the topic of re-engineered cities, I don't see much commitment there, as of 2016. The war for antiquated resources still rages on, and our governments and mega-corporations are BIG dinosaurs (in way of extinction, let's hope) and all the economic resources are alloted to the exertion of those wars. Governance from the US is geared towards those wars of antiquated resources and control them. I sadly do not see any of this changing in my lifetime. Let's hope I am wrong on this.
Its funny, how nobody pointed this out.... But well, this video is quite old. Most recent study found out, that only 10% of jobs are in immediate danger of automation, 40% in severe danger. But its estimated, that for ~86M lost jobs, another ~114M jobs will be opened. Thus automation is even statistically proven to not cause issues. Also, skeptics were always with every revolution. People were afraid they'll lose jobs in Industrial revolution. But did they ? No. Today version of capitalism, even with few flaws, works really well. Poor are getting richer while rich are getting richer. Also.... Norway is Market Economy, there is nothing social or socialistic.
Quality goes up when healthcare gets privatized, people in Canada who are wealthy (i have heard) will spend the money to travel to the United States and actually receive healthcare quickly, as opposed to waiting in Canada. Where did this guy get that privatization of healthcare is a bad idea? Definitely need someone to explain this to me.
Do you actually know any Canadians? I do. Many of them are afraid to travel to the US because they're terrified they'd be hit by a car or something and end up in a US hospital and owe 50 grand just to have their lives saved.
@@jessarose2288 I am a Canadian. The amount you pay in taxes towards healthcare here is enough to cover any possible doctor visit you will need in your lifetime. If you allow healthcare to be expensive than that will lead people to enter the industry and by virtue of that drive prices down. Any doctor who wants to be paid what the work is worth will move to the United States where they can charge what they like. Sheltered Canadians might be afraid of American hospitals, but I can assure you that it isn't nearly as scary as fear mongering politicians make it out to be.
Privatized healthcare doesn't sucks. Price doesn't go up and quality doesn't go down. With free open market- healthcare provider will compete to provide better service. US however is bad due to stupid regulations that prevent competition, it prevent new comers, regulation also make it slow for company to adapt to change on demands. Giving long period of patents, and long FDA approval time is what drive up the cost and decrease competition. Don't try to pull a fast one and assume privatized heath care just straight sucks.
Imo the easiest way is to distribute as basic income the "new money" that are created each year.Basic income will come when people with jobs are a small minority
Making full time job is 20 hrs and doubling the salary. Two ten hour shifts. The rest people can enjoy their life. This will alleviate unemployment and will create more jobs in the service industry.
The only thing id like to add is not only does it look like most jobs will be replaced with robot workers but there will be an economic collapse it is just a matter of time. What i believe we need to change our currency before that happens to a non printed modified bit coin model. Also allowing a much better socialistic economy to take place which could not function like it needs before that needs to be tweaked but have capitalistic incentives in beaded into the system to promote growth.
If this trend toward an automated society and mass unemployment occurs business will clamor for a guaranteed income in order to provide the income to buy their products.
He says that less govermental health care intervention, leads to worse quality of the health care system. This is wrong! Yes the price might be higher with more privat ownership - but to concoude a less efficient health care system is wrong! All in all, a great video.
I suggest to gradually decrease number of working hours (40/week -> 35 -> 30 -> 25...) and gradually increase UBI to compensate structural changes in the economy.
Booming new profession #34: UBI trial administrator. The point here, for me, is to have a UBI _without_ having a minimum wage law, and I can't even see how to run that trial ethically (such a trial group, exempt from minimum wage, could sell their labour at a lower price than anyone else in a minimum-wage society). There's a general over-reliance in this talk on the power of trials. Also, some people out there think that "rights" are the biggest story we've ever told ourselves. (Those people must be left saying to themselves: "that was a _terribly_ clever dodge from one story to another, wasn't it?") That said, I thought this was a good effort wrangling with a difficult and contentious topic.
Wait. So if someone else comes up with a great idea like Uber and takes the risk and makes the investment to implement it...I could get a portion of the profits while doing absolutely nothing? All I have to do is sit on my ass and wait for a check? Brilliant! It's very nice that the speaker showed the results of UBI in Canada. But, he didn't show any negatives...such as how the people who paid for it fared.
Technology will end us all! Luddites been wrong every single time they predicted armageddon and dystopias before - but, somehow, THIS time, they're spot on!
That was kind of weird. You proposed to take a utilitarian look at the issue, claiming that all other approaches are just ideological, hence bad. What was also a bit off, was the part about rising inequality as you did not show how it changed.
How much does anybody need to make? Anything that allows for inequality will eventually result in the same chaos and conflict. The conversation needs to shift away from trickle down and a redistribution of wealth.
One problem is that many people live with not what they can afford but with what they can borrow. Giving people extra money would drive debt up for many.
He's changing the slides just by pointing. It's magic.
+Matt Orfalea He's wearing muscle electrical activity detector wristband, which has been programmed to respond to finger pointing action.
haha :D
There this great article about the Year Capitalism Could Have Changed - www.crowdholding.com/blog/130/the-year-capitalism-could-have-changed
yes , it is!!!
Matt Orfalea David ick
If you like this talk ,you need to look up presidential candidate Andrew Yang on UA-cam.
@BUXB Definitely preferred anyway. :)
Pretty sure Yang picked up some ideas from this guy
@@thetruthbetoldpodcast-hiph9311 They may even be friends. Hmmmm?
Oh no jts magic lol
8 months later Yang is failing as bad as historical UBI. LOL!
one of the best TED talks I've seen, I love the emphasis on the data
@Snappingturtle 267 did you even watch the video?? ignoramous!
@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..
@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)
@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.
@@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.
I think this guy may have warmed up my frigid opinion against UBI. Very impressive, I need to do more research
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.
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.
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.
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.
Also price fixing is illegal in the U.S. And other countries
+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?
+Abe Dillon .... Or policy. It's all about keeping those with more accountable. Otherwise they run the rest of us over eventually.
+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.
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.
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.
Have you heard of Andrew Yang?
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?
Thanks Federico for your talk. Let's do it!
A very objective and honest talk about UBI. Frederico Pistono. I’ll remember that name.
Andrew Yang for President!!
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.
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.
@@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.
we're the youth. We must take control over the chaos created by influential greedy capitalists
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!
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.
Nice theory, but in practice it's more profitable for housing-owners to make sure there's a housing-shortage
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.
It has failed every time it's been tried.
Marc Hebert crazy Andrew Yang has a slogan that goes “not left not right. Forward. And he advocates for UBI”
@@marchebert9813 this is blatantly untrue.
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.....
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.
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.
+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.
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.
"VENTURE CAPITAL FOR THE PEOPLE"
UBI ~
Yang2020!!!
Thank you! Great Ted talk.
The ones who control the money; control the people.
Mmm argument on inflation was not given justice and therefore should not have been included. There is sufficient economic theory suggesting that UBI would not necessarily lead to inflation or hyperinflation, especially given that there would not be more money printed. The money is still the same it is just redistributed.
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
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.
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.
Andrew Yang is the one. I stand, always in the middle and don't give two hoots about politics, until now.
Intelligent 🤓 young man . Bravo 👏
Only 2 places the money for UBI could come from: 1- Print more money, 2- tax people
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.
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.
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.'
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.
+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.
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!
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.
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.
Lunda Wright Taxation is theft. Prove me wrong.
exactly
Excellent talk, right on the money.
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.
The best I have heard to date on this subject.
Does anyone consider inflation?
Will this be given to citizens only?
How much is $1,000 worth if everyone has it?
Yes, We have record high unemployements now. I just wish both sides spoke on this more. Because it can be manipulated if the wrong side does...
This is called scarcity mindset. The short answer is no. Printing new money and pumping into the system would cause inflation. The dividend that Yang is proposing isnt printing new money. Its essentially an added sales tax that feeds directly into a permanent fund that pays out the dividend. Its just recycling already existing resources and re-purposing them to benefit the consumer. Fun fact: we printed out $4 trillion dollars to bail out the banks. The people got nothing back from that.
How about universal basic jobs?
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.
You could go with the model where all necessities were provided for such as housing and food. Money was given for recreation.
Your idea is more profoundly developed in the following documentaries "Paradise or Oblivion" or "The Choice Is Ours 2016" or "Future By Design". Please view these films, they are the culmination of the lifes work of 100yr old Jacque Fresco.
An elder with this much life experience deserves a few hours of our life....
15:00 Rent control
That's what laws are for
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.
I sincerely support your right to a meaningful way of life; greed at the top is so bankrupt :(
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..
what about free all basic service like food , health care , electricity , water,education etc ?
The Venus Projects prposed 'Resource Based Economy", check it out
And a pony! and a unicorn too!
One lunacy at the heart of the current system concerns the NHS. They are the largest consumer of energy and pay for it. I read it's apprx £750m just passported every year from the public purse via NHS to the private energy suppliers. We might call this 'hard' capitalism. A better deal is needed.
Some of these maybe, but in many cases it is probably more efficient to just transfer money to people and let them shop in the free market like we do now.
If property owners can charge as much as people can afford, it doesn't seem to me that it would matter much whether people can afford higher rent due to a cash infusion or due to getting free food. So I doubt this solves that problem.
Of course, if there is only one market where power is so unbalanced (but this seems unlikely) it would be worth considering entering that market to provide free basic service/product. Like providing basic but ok free housing. Not that I know how this could be done.
But there's a hint in here: The problem of financial inequality is closely related to inequality in terms of power. And it's not just what we traditionally think of as "market power" either - unless that includes things like using law suits to harass (like the Church of Scientology successfully did to stop the IRS' attempt to tax them) or lobbying for regulation (as happens all the time).
Some have argued that democracy can be saved by making it far more widespread, such as by mandating profit sharing between the owners and employees in a corporation and giving employees influence also in deciding what the corporation is for, it's strategy and so on - matters currently in theory the shareholders' turf, but realistically largely under the control of management/executives who are supposed to act on behalf of shareholders.
It will probably not be easy. The wealthy few after all have most of the resources. But the problem is systemic, and many wealthy people may welcome change, even change that makes them less powerful. At least I hope so.
Some oil rich countries try that. Executive summary: when you have almost free electricity you don't mind keeping light turned on 24h or powerful but inefficient air conditioning. (that was the aim, right? ;) ) Needless to say, rich people have more electricity requiring devices, thus benefit from such system more.
It's funny that we need more studies about UBI, but "trickle down" which we invest a lot into doesn't need that, despite the fact that it clearly isn't working
UBI doesnt go far enough.
We are slowed by budgets and allowancrs.
We are brilliant as a specie.
What is needed is intelligent MANAGEMENT of the resources.
The Venus Project !!
UBI isn't free enough
We are slowed by the capitalists
We are co-operative as a species
What we need is workers owned means of production
Free Market Socialism!
@@redberet5064
no ism needed
nlRBE
Nobility still exists. Today, we simply call them rich people.
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.
Strong slide deck n the ideology debate thing he points out, sharp indeed. Need to watch out im asking the right question. Can It solve the problem.
i found the following about absolute poverty. It sounds like quite a success story to me: “According to United Nations estimates, in 2015 roughly 734 million people or 10% remained under those conditions [absolut poverty]. The number had previously been measured as 1.9 billion in 1990, and 1.2 billion in 2008.”.
My question: Why should we fix a system which delivers such positive results?
Where I'm hesitant about further experimentation:
Even when you have a large sample size (>10,000), all of those people continue to exist in a society where the vast majority are NOT on UBI, and therefore the experiment doesn't give you a good idea about what happens when EVERYONE is on UBI.
For example, if I was on UBI, I would feel a lot freer about quitting my job and finding a new one if I didn't like my coworkers. But if EVERYONE was on UBI, and therefore EVERYONE felt free to quit if they didn't like their coworkers, would businesses experience very high turnover? And if so, would that bankrupt a lot of smaller businesses who can't afford to continuously recruit/train/retain new employees? Would that greatly harm workplace diversity? And if so, would that necessarily harm society? Maybe, maybe not, but you'd have to test an entire society to get a sense of whether that'd be the case.
Or better example: Let's say that you can give superpowers to everybody in the world. But as an experiment, you give superpowers to only 1% of the population to see what happens. And then you observe that that 1% of the population become superheroes, and everybody loves them, and they become rich and famous and all that. Does it follow that giving superpowers to EVERYBODY would make EVERYBODY rich and famous? Of course not.
That's not to say it's a bad idea, just that you can't really experiment with it. The only way to experiment is to actually do it.
We should add to these studies, the GCC countries where there is a kind of UBI and a lot of foreigners working instead of the local population!!!!
The question is what will a person do with this additional money that is given; will he create more value to society? or the other way around?
Further evidence is required plus policies designed specially to help the plan succeed with as fewer problems as possible.
YangGang!!!!! We need UBI in America!
Wouldnt this just create inflation
With Andrew Yang's plan money would not be printed so i dont see inflation increasing as it would by actually printing more money.
The problem is the 'twin peaks' that dictate all economic policy and future policy...
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?
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
+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.
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.
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.
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.
He didn't answer his question about the rent through, and I don't see UBI has anything to do with the capital return rate.
About the rent, I think the government should build a large amount of public housing at low cost, if the landlord raises the rent too much, people could just move to public housing.
He put the "Pale Blue Dot" quote on the "Earth rise" photo. That's wrong.
Can some one tell me - if we were to go to a universal basic income - where would the money come from? Not trying to stir up trouble, it's a legitimate question. Do you tax the basic income? Tax everyone? Only give it to those who need it, or to everyone... this just seems much more complicated with effects that aren't anticipated.
A general UBI for every citizen of a western Country, is ( atm. ) cheaper than no UBI, because a UBI deletes social security, the basic pension, food stamps, rent subsidies and the entire complicated ( social ) machinery that has to constantly check and recheck everyone. If you are for the UBI, probably depends on what you think will benefit you, but for people employed by the Government with jobs that supervise ( poorer ) citizens, like food stamp controllers and even the IRS, a UBI is a disaster, because ( for example ) in the USA, at least 10 million social controller jobs will disappear. The good thing is, the unemployed social workers, controllers ( even hospital staff to some extent ) will receive ( at least ) the general UBI themselves. Meaning that Federico is wrong on the point of battling "technical unemployment", but unemployment is also the wrong point. A general UBI will increase unemployment in a constructive way. I.e. Even more goods and services can be produced by fewer people, without losing the consumer base. "Who/what" will pay for the UBI ? Well. Exactly the same "entity" that pays for everything now, but minus the controllers. And. That's why it won't happen anytime soon, because the bureaucracy is in power and it doesn't want to get self unemployed, because powerful people ( or people that perceive themselves are powerful ) are scared of unemployment for the wrong reason. Unemployment is widely misunderstood and stigmatized.
Interesting analysis, who watches the watchman??? An accountant will never get rid of his OWN job by declaring himself redundant. The fact that for a lot of people it is now more costly to force them into employment due to the delicate and complex nature of modern processes and procedures and is often cheaper for government and companies to ignore them as a potential source of labour and pay them off with a basic income. The extra costs of supervision, coercion and monitoring are often greater than the net return on an increasingly large portion of society. Ireland has tried with some success to reactivate longterm unemployed by forcing them to attend simplistic job seeking programs, form filling, looking up non existent jobs online on outdated PC's that don't even have basic word processing apps on them. Many claimants simply give up claiming or else emigrate sometime illegally to the US, Canada and elsewhere to escape the madness. The program can be seen as a cynical success in that it has got rid of a lot of long term unemployed claimants but will the government be re-elected???
I find it astonishing that UBI has become a thing before LVT and the single tax. The single tax is the fix of all fixes, UBI would be just one in a cascade of positive outcomes.
UBI would crash the value of the currency being used any services that are price to buy with UBI would eventually be raised to the point where you would either have to raise the UBI or you would not be able to afford the "basic" needs. This leads to again the continued race of UBI, given out by a hopefully responsible and benevolent government, and base cost. I disagree with Mr. Pistono when he attempts to truncate down any questions on this subject to only questions that deal with a pro UBI aftermath so only allowing arguments of how he believes it might be implemented not whether this idea is sound.
wrong. that would only apply if it would be set too high.
***** Thank you.
15:34 - "We know what happens when You privatize health care. It's a very bad idea" - Oh, FUCK OFF. There were many things which were close to triggering me in his sepach but by this statement his whole credibility just flew out of the window.
+EgonCom #triggered#
FYI basic income was initially thought up by libertarians
+kewlkey Fender No it wasn't. The way leftist claim Milton Friedman "invented" or "proposed" basic income is misleading. He didn't propose because he though it was a good idea. He described it like this:
"Look. If You really, really, REALLY, need a welfare in society then I suppose You can do it like this [Insert basic income description]." And even then it was proposed as an transient system with free market still being final destination.
So yeah, in this context saying "In fact it was Milton Fiedman who proposed idea of basic income" really rustled my jimmies
EgonCom "we way leftist" do you mean "the way leftists"? Work on your spelling and grammar.
+EgonCom Why react so angrily to that statement? If you look at countries like America it's clearly true. Terrible healthcare to GDP ratio and the WHO doesn't even rank them well for what they're paying. They're being ripped off.
+AnnoyedDragon America has had socialized healthcare for decades. As you correctly pointed out, this experiment in socialized healthcare has been a disaster.
The US already has a Basic Income system which includes housing, food stamps, metro pass , a cell phone and more. This is a living real time example. Let's study that system and compare the data. It's been around for years with tons of data.
soooooo.. would the rents go up or not ? because that seems to be the biggest question .
+Hugo Fernandes I am a real estate appraiser, so I have some RE knowledge. In most places there would be much less demand for substandard housing, so rents there would drop; however, that would mean more demand for decent housing which would push rents up for most people. In the US in particular, where the school your kid goes to is heavily dependent on where you live, there would be quite a bit of flight from those places with that same substandard housing as those areas are associated with crap schools. On the other hand, supply and demand would still function, and poorer areas would see a great boom in their economy making them better places to live; and the slumlords would have to improve their housing stock in order to compete. Net-net, there would probably be some inflation, not just in rents but in other basic needs. In turn more demand -> more supply -> economic growth and higher wages. So long as the basic income kept up with inflation it would be a win-win.
Paul Peterson tks for the reply =) i understand .. and i also feel the same about it =)
no. the only reason why rents would go up would be shortage or price agreements betwen competitors.
ㅋㅋㅋㅋㅋ That would be true in the oversimplified world of classical economics. Classical economics does a poor job of describing the real world. In the real world, landlords would use their tenant's desire to not have to move to push up the rent, figuring that they can get more, and in most cases being right. Also, in a more classical sense, demand would go up as the homeless would look for apartments. The rental market, as with most real-estate markets is not particularly efficient, and the friction almost always favors the landlord.
For the inflation argument, let us imagine a closed system with 10 widgets, 10 people each with $10
Now let say the widgets can now be created by automation ie, basically, there is no limit to the amount of its production.
In that scenario, there would be no inflation as there is essentially an unlimited supply of widgets, the unit price can remain the same regardless of the demand. The only bottleneck to the number of transactions in this system is the amount of money in circulation.
the future looks incredible, robots, machines, renewable energy.
You want to independent of government, buy solar panels in your home.
No government is a free society
@@jamdaddy7589 You can have a free society with a government.
Happy Dreams Young Lad said the fall of Rome
Center Focused, Libertarian = winning. Get rid of the Left and Right, stand up for individual rights!
The timeline is off, but greater automation is almost here. Certainly here by the 2030's.
Automation may cause deflation, but loss of jobs.
Greater productivity, at a lower cost, with possibly lower priced items.
UBI may cause inflation, but temporary relief.
People raising the prices of items, inflation, will definitely be a problem.
It's what occurred after the Covid stimulus spending in the US.
Could a balance be reached where they cancel each other out?
The inflation above already occurs, the cause is called government spending.
The deflation above also already occurs driven by technological progress, or automation.
Inequality is not an indication that there is something about capitalism that needs "fixed". Inequality of income is simply a reflection of the fact that ople are born with massive inequality - inequality of talent, inequality of skill, inequality of ambition, etc. etc. Why are we dismayed to discover that all of those inequalities result in inequality of income and wealth?
UBI is based on the erroneous idea that there is only a finite amount of beneficial work to be performed.
Rent (including rent on money i.e. interest) is the real root problem here in the first place, and an even better UBI system than already proposed would be to fund UBI from a tax on rent income (meaning that people who pay rent have a negative income and "pay" a negative tax i.e. actually get even more money). This will discourage renting, leading to the selling-off of rental housing at prices and terms that the now-renters can afford, since that's the only remaining way for the landowners to profit off their land and escape the rental tax. Bam, problem solved.
So communism is "fixed capitalism" ... the sign of the times I guess.
+zdrux If you think UBI is communism then you have no idea what communism is.
+mpik97 communism is a death cult that kills millions everywhere it is tried. and causes mass starvation.
That is what I know about it.
+mpik97 It's UA-cam, half of them don't know their asshole from their elbow.
+Purple Vortexx The phillosopher. What you described there was also capitalism - believe it or not.
LemonPieLoL Well...I don't know what you mean by capitalism.......but I only support free trade.
Free trade does not kill anyone (except a few accidents which happen anywhere and in any system)
If you know of a time when free trade killed millions of people in a country....then I would love to hear about it......but I will be waiting a while as you don't have any facts to back up your claims
I have a problem understanding ownership of capital. Is it working capital or farting capital? Can capital work outside of society? Can capital work in society without benefiting society?
So by ideology you mean people who are just trying to stick to their favorite ideology without looking at facts or evidence and not everybody who is sticking to an ideology. What is wrong with morality? We should always try to do what is right.
IF PEOPLE HAD BASIC INCOME, HOUSING, HEALTH CARE AND EDUCATION IT WOULD GIVE PEOPLE A CHANCE AND TIME TO CREATE ADDITIONAL JOBS AND OR PRODUCTS OR WOULD WE HAVE A LAZY SOCIETY?
Great! And the groups who continued working, I assume middle aged people with good jobs. Were they also TAXED accordingly to pay for the ubi? For example a person who makes $150,000 a year. Did they get TAXED an extra $30,000 a year to get back $6000 a year to pay for the women having kids and young men not working? I highly doubt it or else they would never participate. So like all government programs you have to force productive people to participate to subsidize unproductive people.
The person who makes $150,000 a year receives that money from somewhere. Guess where?
Next on TED, how to fix a painting with an acetylene torch.
and after that... how to fix an acetylene torch with a stick of dynamite...
I think that basic income should be a ratio directly proportional with the mechanized and automated productivity.
BlancGivre the UBI proposed here is a band aid solution a transitional measure to realizing our true human potential.
The socioeconomic system of the future will be unlike any 'ism' of the past! Money is no longer the most efficient means of resource management, that title goes to the 'direct' application of our science, think IoT(Internet of Things). 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 check out the life work of 100 year old Jacque Fresco. Also 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....?
Hi, Thanks for the recommendations! I truly agree with you that UBI is not a solution as such. I was merely suggesting that if govs do opt for a UBI, that it should be calculated based on automation and robotization productivity metrics. Otherwise, the economy of our current time is not going to be performing well (expensive products produced mechanically, but which fewer and fewer people can afford). Of course this is a Band-Aid solution and not one that I personally am necessarily in favor of. On the topic of re-engineered cities, I don't see much commitment there, as of 2016. The war for antiquated resources still rages on, and our governments and mega-corporations are BIG dinosaurs (in way of extinction, let's hope) and all the economic resources are alloted to the exertion of those wars. Governance from the US is geared towards those wars of antiquated resources and control them. I sadly do not see any of this changing in my lifetime. Let's hope I am wrong on this.
Socialism, communism, thay all fail.
Capitalism is not fixed by making it more like marxism. Nonsense.
+Joseph Ang They sure do, and capitalism is next.
+Joseph Ang what are you measuring? Scandinavia seems to be ok.
These are words I don't like. Here is a word I like.
Its funny, how nobody pointed this out.... But well, this video is quite old.
Most recent study found out, that only 10% of jobs are in immediate danger of automation, 40% in severe danger. But its estimated, that for ~86M lost jobs, another ~114M jobs will be opened. Thus automation is even statistically proven to not cause issues.
Also, skeptics were always with every revolution. People were afraid they'll lose jobs in Industrial revolution. But did they ? No.
Today version of capitalism, even with few flaws, works really well. Poor are getting richer while rich are getting richer.
Also.... Norway is Market Economy, there is nothing social or socialistic.
Quality goes up when healthcare gets privatized, people in Canada who are wealthy (i have heard) will spend the money to travel to the United States and actually receive healthcare quickly, as opposed to waiting in Canada. Where did this guy get that privatization of healthcare is a bad idea? Definitely need someone to explain this to me.
Do you actually know any Canadians?
I do.
Many of them are afraid to travel to the US because they're terrified they'd be hit by a car or something and end up in a US hospital and owe 50 grand just to have their lives saved.
@@jessarose2288 I am a Canadian. The amount you pay in taxes towards healthcare here is enough to cover any possible doctor visit you will need in your lifetime. If you allow healthcare to be expensive than that will lead people to enter the industry and by virtue of that drive prices down. Any doctor who wants to be paid what the work is worth will move to the United States where they can charge what they like. Sheltered Canadians might be afraid of American hospitals, but I can assure you that it isn't nearly as scary as fear mongering politicians make it out to be.
Privatized healthcare doesn't sucks.
Price doesn't go up and quality doesn't go down. With free open market- healthcare provider will compete to provide better service. US however is bad due to stupid regulations that prevent competition, it prevent new comers, regulation also make it slow for company to adapt to change on demands. Giving long period of patents, and long FDA approval time is what drive up the cost and decrease competition.
Don't try to pull a fast one and assume privatized heath care just straight sucks.
More people should learn more skills related to technical jobs and the trades. That would make you valuable in the job market of today.
Fixing Capitalism means abolishing it.
r > g
As a rich capitalist, believe me, it’s true.
Inequality is by design
Imo the easiest way is to distribute as basic income the "new money" that are created each year.Basic income will come when people with jobs are a small minority
Anyone know where he got his "revenue per employee" statistics? And if the revenue listed is by the year or by the lifetime?
Making full time job is 20 hrs and doubling the salary. Two ten hour shifts. The rest people can enjoy their life. This will alleviate unemployment and will create more jobs in the service industry.
The only thing id like to add is not only does it look like most jobs will be replaced with robot workers but there will be an economic collapse it is just a matter of time.
What i believe we need to change our currency before that happens to a non printed modified bit coin model. Also allowing a much better socialistic economy to take place which could not function like it needs before that needs to be tweaked but have capitalistic incentives in beaded into the system to promote growth.
Shiiit, I missed this one! I would have loved to see this in haarlem instead of behind the pc!
If this trend toward an automated society and mass unemployment occurs business will clamor for a guaranteed income in order to provide the income to buy their products.
He says that less govermental health care intervention, leads to worse quality of the health care system. This is wrong! Yes the price might be higher with more privat ownership - but to concoude a less efficient health care system is wrong! All in all, a great video.
I suggest to gradually decrease number of working hours (40/week -> 35 -> 30 -> 25...) and gradually increase UBI to compensate structural changes in the economy.
Booming new profession #34: UBI trial administrator.
The point here, for me, is to have a UBI _without_ having a minimum wage law, and I can't even see how to run that trial ethically (such a trial group, exempt from minimum wage, could sell their labour at a lower price than anyone else in a minimum-wage society). There's a general over-reliance in this talk on the power of trials. Also, some people out there think that "rights" are the biggest story we've ever told ourselves. (Those people must be left saying to themselves: "that was a _terribly_ clever dodge from one story to another, wasn't it?")
That said, I thought this was a good effort wrangling with a difficult and contentious topic.
Wait. So if someone else comes up with a great idea like Uber and takes the risk and makes the investment to implement it...I could get a portion of the profits while doing absolutely nothing? All I have to do is sit on my ass and wait for a check? Brilliant!
It's very nice that the speaker showed the results of UBI in Canada. But, he didn't show any negatives...such as how the people who paid for it fared.
We should try to be more flexible and just start trying diferent things. I mean much worse it cannot become
Technology will end us all! Luddites been wrong every single time they predicted armageddon and dystopias before - but, somehow, THIS time, they're spot on!
That was kind of weird. You proposed to take a utilitarian look at the issue, claiming that all other approaches are just ideological, hence bad.
What was also a bit off, was the part about rising inequality as you did not show how it changed.
How much does anybody need to make? Anything that allows for inequality will eventually result in the same chaos and conflict. The conversation needs to shift away from trickle down and a redistribution of wealth.
One problem is that many people live with not what they can afford but with what they can borrow.
Giving people extra money would drive debt up for many.