UBI is kinda stupid, really
Вставка
- Опубліковано 6 лип 2024
- Support me on Patreon: / comradehakim
Twitter: @YaBoiHakim
I'm late to the discussion but, UBI is still popular amongst the wider left. Here's a light discussion on the issues of UBI as well as what possible solutions can be found.
Sources and further reading in the pinned comment.
00:00 Introduction: definition
00:45 The issues with UBI
05:27 The solutions to those issues
08:22 Conclusion: R E A D L E N I N N N N N N N N N
Support me on Patreon: www.patreon.com/ComradeHakim
Twitter: @YaBoiHakim
I'm late to the discussion but, UBI is still popular amongst the wider left. Here's a light discussion on the issues of UBI as well as what possible solutions can be found. Tl;dr? It's only a good idea with a strengthening of social programs, which is definitely not the aim of those powerful that advocate for UBI. Tl;dr of tl'dr? Read Lenin. Reformism is not enough.
*Sources:*
www.investopedia.com/terms/b/basic-income.asp
2020.yang2020.com/policies/the-freedom-dividend/
www.nytimes.com/2020/04/16/business/stimulus-paychecks-garnish-banks.html
apnews.com/article/lifestyle-business-health-coronavirus-pandemic-c7f2cad9c88a0ef08d7e63152de51eb4
www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2021-09-15/new-york-city-rents-landlords-jack-up-prices-70-in-lease-renewals-post-covid
citymonitor.ai/government/budgets/absent-aid-few-us-cities-will-be-able-to-avoid-austerity
www.cnbc.com/2020/01/14/budget-neutral-universal-basic-income-plan-would-pay-1320-per-month.html
www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2018/08/07/for-most-us-workers-real-wages-have-barely-budged-for-decades/
monthlyreview.org/2011/11/01/the-global-reserve-army-of-labor-and-the-new-imperialism/
www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2020/09/29/increasing-share-of-americans-favor-a-single-government-program-to-provide-health-care-coverage/
www.metro-magazine.com/10021892/poll-3-of-4-americans-want-more-public-transit-options
www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2021/08/02/as-national-eviction-ban-expires-a-look-at-who-rents-and-who-owns-in-the-u-s/
www.health.org.uk/news-and-comment/news/lack-of-investment-in-nhs-infrastructure-is-undermining-patient-care
www.humanium.org/en/access-to-education-in-the-united-states-inequality/
qz.com/1556194/the-gig-economy-is-quietly-undermining-a-century-of-worker-protections/
What's your opinion on Universal Basic Shareholding as a transitional measure? I'm not too fond on it (and it's even less politically viable than UBI), but some of my socialist friends insist on its supposedly "superiority" in contrast with "overt revolution" for gradual transfer of capital.
Hakim please do a video on Baathist Iraq
@bunkey lenin boring? CAP
You are not allowed to point out UBI under capitalism = a total fucking disaster as it funells even more money to the already rich, via profit from the extra spending turned into dividend payment for those rich, and you are not allowed to point out its a fucking disaster of an idea when capitalism already incentivises us to take 30 billion tones more resources a year than the planet can sustain. Spiking consumption at this juncture is not a good idea.
UBI under capitalism =
1. A spike in consumption of dwindling resources
2. Increasing wealth and political power for the already wealthy,
@@user_simon Lots of left-liberals and socdems say UBI would solve capitalist problems (even here some commentors said it would solve automation unemployment issues). UBI is not socialism, as it not give workers any power over their economic or political conditions. Finally, communist should strive for the abolition of commodity/monetary relations, not to reinforce them by making them "universally accesible".
UBI is treating the symptom instead of the problem. The problem is not that people don't have enough money, it's that we are all forced to operate within an oppressive system designed to deny us basic human necessities without exchanging ever increasing quantities of labor for ever decreasing returns. Simply giving people money does nothing to reform the system, because it cannot be reformed. It must be replaced.
Yes, but the symptoms _are_ treated.
aren't people forced to operate within an oppressive system design to deny us basic human necessities... because people need money? If people can get the money without working, then they wouldn't need to work.
I would figure, if communities didn't need to work for capitalists, they would have the resources to find alternatives to the broken system. It seems like the easiest way to destroy capitalism.. by socializing capital
@@paulshipper143 we are forced to work within that system. And a UBI will just end up increasing consumption, which is the opposite of solving the pollution and emissions problems.
Our only way out of this that i can see is ending money altogether.
Restructure our resources allocation to focus on conservation, not extraction by creating only goods that have the longest lifespans using the most optimal materials known at time of creation.
And, we cant do this and still use money. Reducing production in this way will create a limited number of jobs. Which would only end up creating a different set of haves than we have now.
Check out Peter josephs UA-cam channel, revolution now. He talks about all this ,the whys and hows of it all.
ALL work could be voluntary. All we need to do is let money finally die.
Your name is the deffinition of a "Jewish Nazi"
@@amandap9332 UBI could lower suffering which would enable people to care to do something about pollution.
If you haven't realized it.. people ignored pollution because they're afraid they might lose their jobs.
Money is a cool tool to get people to do shit. So I don't think it's evil. It's just been misused by our government to do stupid shit.. basically to allow rich people to hoard it.
You say we can't use money to do that stuff.. i say yeah.. we can. We can have our government.. which create and control the money.. to focus on those things.
I do not see your point.... but also believe money is pretend based on society needing to find a way to enable trade..... and if we had UBI.. all work could be voluntary... tada.. I found a way to make it work
PS To be fair, I do believe people like you should be able to live in a community that doesn't use money... I can imagine something like that.. but over all you will need money for the outside world.. we can talk about how to make your community a reality.. but it does involve money.
One problem I encountered when discussing UBI is that there is no real consensus on what it means; UBI was used to refer to everything from a radical method of redistributing income to a more efficient model of the welfare system, and each has their own unique criticisms and issues to be raised.
@Patrick Ellis; In that light it sounds just like prohibition! The temperance movement agitated for hard liquor to be a controlled substance and slimy politicians took that momentum and banned everything, turned around and asked 'are you happy?'
And it's a safe bet the temperance movement had a much stronger consensus on the details than UBI does now.
@YourLocalCommunist probably a transition from capitalism to socialism will be a revolutionary one, no way rich people will give up all the benefits they have
@YourLocalCommunist There is no UBI in Finland, nor is Finland transitioning to socialism. I wish it was, but its not.
@@eiolenimi6778 excactly. As a finnish person people easily project the finnish state as much bigger of a welfare state than it actually is nowadays after years of austerity and even our current "leftwing" government continuing those policies
@@Somajsibere Thats also why we have no choice if a revolution would be violent, the bougies could just hand over the means of production and no one will get hurt, however, that would be against their interest....
My theory was that UBI would be a way to get people to accept the unemployment that came with automation without having them question who should own the robots. The labor itself will be stolen from real people who will have no bargaining power at all and will receive only a fraction of the benefit an automated society should deliver.
I'm pretty sure it is there in order to keep the economy afloat, since widespread unemployment would mean no one would have the money to buy anything, resulting in the collapse of the economy.
But how would the UBI be funded then, if not through the same mechanisms as the welfare state? Is this some mmt magic I'm not aware of?
@@RatchetClank93 I assume debt and some tax increase
@@Somajsibere like deficit spending and tax increase for the non automated workers?
@@RatchetClank93 probably
Blessed by Hakim’s smooth voice on this cold Thursday morning.
I wish for some cold weather 🙌
NORTHERNER
Hakim is 🤡🤡🤡
@@bonkedwoofy4240 and why is that, bonked woofy?
@@bonkedwoofy4240 anything intelligent to add or just that frind?
If we have UBI, landlords will just take it all by raising rent
Cap the price of rent
@@BritishRepublicsn good luck with that
Except that hasn't happened anywhere
More community housing either by the communes themselves or by non profit organisations. Vienna is a good example for the first, the many cooperatives in Germany an example for the latter.
The capitalists will also raise the prices.
I feel like the dislikes didn't get to the solutions section. I was honestly a bit antagonistic with the title and beginning of this video. But of course, a UBI without significant structural change is not going to improve living conditions. I guess I had just typically thought those in favor of a UBI were aware of this.
You see you’re expecting people to continue watching after they hear something they disagree with. This should be standard, of course, but it’s far too much to expect from some people
The video was too USA-centric
@@riverfoster7404 it’s difficult to hear contradictory things and media does not encourage us to do so.
You feel wrong. I personally agreed with the diagnosis, but the so called 'solution' section is just absurd. 'Revolution' is just an excuse to use violence and theft to transfer power from capitalists to communists, its nothing new and we all know where it leads - totalitarian regimes. So please, hold your assumptions, and try to look at the issue from a different perspective, if you really want to understand it.
I think those on board think they are liberal when they are just neo-liberal libertarians (at least wannabes). They don’t comprehend the full scope of the problem. They think they’re so out of the box, when in actuality, their UBI checks just gets swept right back up into the hands of billionaires. Not thinking clearly, easily bribed by false quick fixes.
Oh, and fooled by fake politicians like Yang who claim to care about privacy, when he’s a tech guru/CEO himself. That’s really genuine (not).
It's like applying a band-aid to an amputation
I mean, if you don't use your brain; sure.
its better than nothing though? i mean, it gives people something. it doesnt mean ubi is where it stops lol?
@vvenomm 492 The idea of a monthly income for everyone, funded by taxes, does not necessitate any of the things that this video pretends that it does. If it otherwise technically isn't called UBI, despite literally being that, then call it something else. I don't care about technicalities.
@@cl8804 I mean if UBI is funded from my own taxes, than what is the point? it s just the money that it is already mine
and if you say otherwise, than who is going to pay for it? not even the social democracies wont willing rise taxes on the rich and corporations, so what's the point ?
@@cl8804 do you know anything about demand pull inflation
A UBI high enough to live off is good to get rid of Bullshit jobs as described by Graeber
Indeed! Bring it in and I bet 90% of those pointless jobs would see resignations within the first week.
It should be a huge red flag that billionaires are on board with it.
Billionaires also support taxing the rich, is that now a bad idea too?
Billionaires are on board with renewable energy and abortion rights too
@@praisethesun7255 They don't.
@@zzz-nu2re They aren't, though.
And the abortion stuff is meaningless culture war, it won't change anything and worse, it will be used to do eugenics or depopulation( because they'll blame over population instead of overconsumption).
That being said, women having bodily autonomy is good.
@@durshurrikun150 name a billionaire who isn't and I'll name 3. Let's play
To quote Wolff in one of his better moments: "What we want is ABOLITION of slavery (capitalism)... NOT a better paid slave (worker)!"
No. What you want is to own slaves (communism and socialism). They are the ones who expect people to work and create products for free.
Any measure that doesn't address the people's relationship to the means of production will not work.
The problem with that? It only serves to increase consumption.
We need LESS work, not more. Not only for our mental health either. We need to drastically reduce ALL production.
Changing who gets the money isn't really an answer, just a continuation of the status quo.
Ending the monetary system is about the only way we bring our planet back from the brink of environmental collapse.
Shifting money to different populations, doesn't help in the long run.
Then how about you also be responsible for the consumption of society if you want to be responsible for the production. Go vegan.
@@noobslayeru going vegan will never be a real viable solution buddy, it'll lead to millions of deaths simply because the lack of good nutrients and fats. If we actually change our production outputs to fit what we need not what the rich want to sell it'll fix the environmental problems caused by humans without ever even needing to consider going vegan. Also going vegan is a non solution literally dreamed up by rich investors selling vegan products cx
@@justinallen2408 lmaoooooooo educate yourself please. You’re spreading bourgeois propaganda. The poorest of nations eat mainly plant based, and historically, animal products were luxury items.
@@noobslayeru lol since rich people are meat (only a recent phenomenon in human history) we can't have it according to this guy
Consider: in Canada we essentially had a full UBI for a lot of the pandemic, and still have increased unemployment benefits which act sort of like a UBI.
The effects we've seen are both a big increase of bargaining power for workers due to a smaller reserve army of labour, and thus increased unionization, and a surge in membership for revolutionary organizations across the board.
There are obviously other factors, but it's made ke reconsider where I stand on UBI
Those benefits are only short term.
I wouldn't use Canada as a defense of UBI. Canada went into considerable debt to be able to maintain a certain economic floor during the pandemic. It was an emergency measure not a long term program and would require considerable reworking to be used in a long-term experiment before it could ever be deployed finally.
@@Tetragrammaton22 Sure, I'm not saying that anyone should copy Canada's implementation 1 to 1, just pointing out that the general effects of a semi-UBI have been widely positive for the labour movement and have actually made people more radical unlike a lot of the standard concessions.
@@Tetragrammaton22 A country accruing debt is not inherently a bad thing, especially if its to fund social programs or emergency funding for its citizens. In the meantime, as someguyoutthere110 points out, the unintended side effects of people undergoing a realignment or reassessment of values took place and it was a huge eye opener for folks who'd never experienced this kind of leisure before. This is the benefit of UBI right now (at least the Canadian model, us Americans got fucked lol). There is revolutionary potential in it because of how it could get the every day person, who isn't politically inclined or radical/revolutionary by any means, to wake up to the horrors of every day life in capitalism. Its beginning to happen here in the US, albeit for different reasons (tens of thousands of workers are striking right now as we speak)-namely that the US government sent us one check and left people to fend for themselves during a pandemic and economic meltdown.
Great, where do you think Canada got their money from? Oh, I may have just heard some third world people complaining about their surplus values, sure have nothing to do with Canada.
ubi is a reddit user’s idea of economic emancipation
LOL
_The perfect comment_
It’s funny you say that. There is a thread in r/antiwork right now where a guy is espousing the same points hakim said someone would, like using UBI to cut social programs
UBI has a potential to improve poor peoples lives however the most important aspect to look at here is why would the bourgeoise support UBI in the first place? It is simply a life support system for capitalism. This actually tells us something really important and interesting. They are scared of capitalism failing, and of it being replaced altogether with socialism. They hope they can keep the inequality, exploitation in place, but UBI will cause mass apathy, they are hoping that with a few more scraps working class people will satiate themselves with cheap drugs and entertainment, and not whine about "equality" That is the real purpose of UBI, to quell unrest. It is like a modern version of the old Roman "Bread and Games"
Exporting production to third world countries and sweat shops is also a life support for capitalism. It is awful, but it does a great job at distancing people from (and hiding) a lot of the real suffering and exploitation that capitalism currently engages in.
Now, the "middle class" has been successfully duped into believing that all the "old problems" of capitalism are in the past, and things are "better now".
Even if I'm still deciding if UBI is really useful or just a band-aid, there's a reason why I consider it useful: for unpaid domestic labour (mainly people - normally women - who stay at home taking care of it (or spend part of their time doing so). So I'm a dum-dum and I'm not too versed (yet) in marxism, that's why I would like to ask about what a Marxist society would do with this kind of labour. I'm not sure if it would transform it into paid labour (and how it would do it) or if it will be distributed around a wider community. I don't know if my question makes any sense, it's just that I think that UBI can be a good solution for all this unpaid labour, but I might have just some blind spots because I come from a more reformist background, so I would like to learn about more radical ways to solve unpaid domestic labour. Thank you if you take the time to answer me! :D
that is actually a hell of a question right there. A huge chunk of the population doesn't think that it's a job, but rather "your responsibiity for a choice you made", as if bringing up the people who make up societies wasn't a full time job. Classic misoginy. You got a point!
This is a great point. Many in the Marxist tradition discuss this issue and the typical line is that unpaid domestic labor is labor and should be paid. To my knowledge no socialist state has explicitly paid homemakers but I could be wrong. East Germany sorta did this indirectly by paying couples for having kids as well as providing free childcare.
While I don’t fully agree with all their beliefs, the book “Women and Socialism” is a good secondary source and for some primary theory reading Alexandra Kollentai wrote a lot about this topic
@@angelagwen1818 Thanks for the book recommendations! I'm going to check them out :)
You're asking the right questions. Domestic labour under transitional socialism should probably be paid until wage labour can be abolished. A UBI that gives equally to unpaid domestic homemakers and paid labourers doesn't do much in the way of equality, but it may help unpaid labourers have some spending power. Still, robust social programs are best, yet I understand why unpaid labourers would appreciate some of their own indiscriminate spending money.
Paid maternity and/or paternity leave.
Being anti-UBI in the first world is quite unpopular, so having this video is really helpful.
Principle > Popularity
@@thekycklingwizard78 The amount of people who only care about things with high view counts, shares, likes, or things that everyone else in their life parrots uncritically is really maddening sometimes.
In America, it's a very unpopular opinion. It's unpopular for all the wrong reasons, though.
Where is it popular?
This video isn’t anti-UBI though. He just says that it wouldn’t work in a capitalist society because the ones who have power would find other ways to take that money back.
Never a grim note to end on when you say "Read Lenin"
Let's read the words of a counter revolutionary, what could go wrong.
@@1997lordofdoom Lenin is counter-revolutionary?
@@1997lordofdoom read books anarchild
UBI in and of itself seems progressive, but like Lenin pointed out, the ''thing in itself'' is pretty useless.
It always depends on from which class standpoint a reform like UBI is coming from.
If UBI comes directly from a series of demands by workers through the class struggle, then us marxists should support it tirelessly as it will make workers lives easier, and as path forward in class conciousness.
If it comes as a proposal from the right and the parasitic ruling class, then of course it is not progressive - exactly like Hakim points out.
Good fucking luck getting any right leaning party in the entire world to implement UBI. I don't think that's ever happened in history.
@@rob9726 Yang has explicitly said before that he believes UBI is important to stave off the masses from revolt.... the right proposing UBI might come sooner than u think
@@rob9726 What is a right party in your definition?
In my book, a right party defend the interests of the ruling class. A left party represent the workers movement and the working class.
Andrew Yang represent noone except his ''friends at silicon valley''. The ruling class.
The ubi would come from u if your a tax payer, so it would just be stealing from u and giving back some of your money as gov would also need some of your money to run the redistribution program, it's stupid. tax payers would be richer if they were just allowed to keep their money instead of have gov steal enuf to keep some for themself and give them back some.
And $1000 a month isn't enuf for people to live on, so many of those poor people on welfare would just choose to stay on welfare instead of get the $1000/ month cuz their welfare benifits r worth more. The only people who might benefit from the $1000 a month r poor people who currently r not getting that much in the form of money or benefits that are worth that much.
So in that case it's better to just give those poor people $1000/month or enuf to live on via taxes or chairty, and put in more tax credits for helping the poor.
Also the poor should be allowed an acre of free tax free land to live on and grow food on, and gov should end taxes on Everyone with less than $100000 worth of property. Gov shouldn't be forcing people to be poor and dependent.
End mandatory school. People should be able to learn how to do a good job they want without being forced to learn irrelevant info.
End gov mandated curriculums. End ged and hsd requirements.
Ubi is stupid. Stealing from the rich and middle class just for gov to keep some and to give them back some is stupid..
The only positive thing about UBI, which is the only thing I can think of, is that it's at least better than no social safety nets or state benefits at all. Ultimately the best social security under capitalism is a socialised welfare state though, which is what Scandinavia, Switzerland and France have, in my opinion. I'd take UBI over nothing, but I wouldn't take UBI over actual strong welfare. Anyway, none of this matters anyway, since capitalism is inherently bad and we should destroy it as soon as possible, but it's still important to address how we can make capitalism better and fairer in the short-term, or in the mean time, whilst we push for socialism, which is what people such as Corbyn and to an extent, Sanders suggested.
Its not really capitalism thats bad. Yes, its the most rapacious form of a monetary system weve seen thus far. However, its the very existence of money itself that keeps us stuck.
The monetary system will only ever reward the worst in human behavior, and punish the best. Even if it doesn't want or seek this paradigm. Its inherent to the system itself.
A business that produces the best possible products with the longest lifespans will fail due to lack of cyclical sales.
This is inherent in the monetary system. And cant be regulated away. Cant even be moralized away.
As long as we continue to utilize money this will be a permanent problem.
And will continue to force us to force environmental degradation to maintain cyclical sales and thus, the economy.
If we dont end money we will end our species. Regardless of how we tweak and regulate the monetary system.
We only need about 3% of the population working to produce enough to maintain the needs of the entire human race utilizing automation. We dont do that so we can maintain jobs. Jobs that are killing us. Both through the amount of work we have to put in to survive and the amount of overproduction thats contributing to global pollution.
Its time we be done with this outdated system.
@@amandap9332 even without a monetary system, unless you deal with the relationship between labor and the means of production, you will just reinvent the same shitty wheel that's currently crushing us.
It was a good thing about Ubi is that it avoids a lot of the cruel and arbitrary enforcement of current welfare systems (speaking as an American) and replaces them with a check by right. It would also help out folks who had previously relied on support from someone else to live on ie home maker fleeing an abusive relationship or folks hit 18 and are imiditly kicked out by their parents or foster care. The horrific thing about most Ubi plans is that they'll replace most monetary support services with a single monthly paycheck that will be lower than the current payout for a lot of folks who are on multiple forms of support ie disability and subsidized rent so a lot of the most vulnerable populations will be directly bent over barrel.
@@MrJstorm4 even under welfare capitalism, the answer isn't deleting every social service and replacing it with a pittance check eaten up by some shitbag landlord, the answer is getting rid of means testing and making the social services themselves universal instead because again, the value prospect is way higher.
and even then, the real answer is eliminating capitalism.
how do grifter capitalists like Andrew Yang so easily trick people on this issue? it's nakedly a shit deal.
@@NightfallGemini I think literally because the current system manages to be worse for most people who are not too sick to work
Love what you do.
I feel like a more educated leftist after every video. This was helpful to me.
Really nice to hear your opinion on this matter hakim.
bunkey no you are
Hakim is correct, but this really IS the correct Marxist Leninist position. As the comrade said, read Lenin on Reformism.
Ah yes, educated communists who always think they're right who don't know the difference between you're and your
@bunkey No it's what they say that derails their actual point
@bunkey I know, jk. To be honest though, I'm sick of this channel as I think it's the best example of why left rethoric and communism in general is a rotting corpse in today's political landscape. I mean, look at it, leftist rethorists like hakim who keep asking themselves "where is the left in the west" why are communists parties in Europe only at 2/3%? ". Look at what old school(like the one supported by this channel) has led us to in the modern era:look at Belarus and how they are having the KGB, the righteous shield of the people, poison refugees and how shitty their country is
Yes, exactly.....as stated in the video, the type of UBI most people are talking about is a capitalistic version that replaces social programs...... there is a more socialist type of UBI worth fighting for but the type proposed by billionaires isn't it
why
The ubi would come from u if your a tax payer, so it would just be stealing from u and giving back some of your money as gov would also need some of your money to run the redistribution program, it's stupid. tax payers would be richer if they were just allowed to keep their money instead of have gov steal enuf to keep some for themself and give them back some.
And $1000 a month isn't enuf for people to live on, so many of those poor people on welfare would just choose to stay on welfare instead of get the $1000/ month cuz their welfare benifits r worth more. The only people who might benefit from the $1000 a month r poor people who currently r not getting that much in the form of money or benefits that are worth that much.
So in that case it's better to just give those poor people $1000/month or enuf to live on via taxes or chairty, and put in more tax credits for helping the poor.
Also the poor should be allowed an acre of free tax free land to live on and grow food on, and gov should end taxes on Everyone with less than $100000 worth of property. Gov shouldn't be forcing people to be poor and dependent.
End mandatory school. People should be able to learn how to do a good job they want without being forced to learn irrelevant info.
End gov mandated curriculums. End ged and hsd requirements.
Ubi is stupid. Stealing from the rich and middle class just for gov to keep some and to give them back some is stupid..
How would giving everyone tax money be a capitalist policy? That's more like socialism.
100%. I can understand social democrats who argue for Universal Basic Services/UBS, but UBI is a complete red herring
Agreed
Yes UBS is the closest way to run capitalism ethically. It's not ethical, it's capitalism but true social democracy is the closest possible and thus should be the minimum
The ubi would come from u if your a tax payer, so it would just be stealing from u and giving back some of your money as gov would also need some of your money to run the redistribution program, it's stupid. tax payers would be richer if they were just allowed to keep their money instead of have gov steal enuf to keep some for themself and give them back some.
And $1000 a month isn't enuf for people to live on, so many of those poor people on welfare would just choose to stay on welfare instead of get the $1000/ month cuz their welfare benifits r worth more. The only people who might benefit from the $1000 a month r poor people who currently r not getting that much in the form of money or benefits that are worth that much.
So in that case it's better to just give those poor people $1000/month or enuf to live on via taxes or chairty, and put in more tax credits for helping the poor.
Also the poor should be allowed an acre of free tax free land to live on and grow food on, and gov should end taxes on Everyone with less than $100000 worth of property. Gov shouldn't be forcing people to be poor and dependent.
End mandatory school. People should be able to learn how to do a good job they want without being forced to learn irrelevant info.
End gov mandated curriculums. End ged and hsd requirements.
Ubi is stupid. Stealing from the rich and middle class just for gov to keep some and to give them back some is stupid..
Ubs is a worse ubi. Tell me how u would ensure everyone has shelter and food.
@@zzz-nu2re Um... Infrastructure? UBI is a worse version of UBS, UBI can be included within UBS for instance
Thank you for this. I've been saying this all my militant life and being called a "reactionary"
Ubi wouldn't fix any of the underlying issues of capitalism. Reminds me of when we got our stimulus checks and the cost of everything skyrocketed to eat up the new money.
UBI wouldn’t nearly cover the cost of student loans nor privatized monthly “health””care” charges. Under the current system, it only makes the rich further rich. It doesn’t support the individual to alleviate the ongoing economic oppression/deprivation.
It’s merely crumbs.
Well, the prices skyrocketed because of printing money for stimulus checks, instead of redistributing money for the same stimulus checks. That is a huge difference.
UBI can only be useful as a transitionary policy used while dismantling the exploitive systems that make it look favorable. It's the "First aid" action before proper treatment. If our society here in the US was less fucked I could see a smoother transition maybe happening but the system rather crash and burn than phase out. With our system here in the US that constantly demands means testing, which generally means it's dead in the water, best case I can feasibly see is skipping right into collapse and maybe rebuilding something not shit.
Its just the new credit card; it just prolongs the system while people get poorer and poorer
To quote George Carlin - 'that's the American way - spending money you don't have on things you don't need'
Man I really wish we could just treat each other with a bare amount of human decency and respect, because then we could have a genuine discussion about how we all can prosper. Too bad we have created mountainous corporations that will do everything they can to make sure that will never happen.
Equating profitability with social good might be the greatest single dupe we've fallen for.
Watching people jump thru hoops to explain why highways are exempt is kinda fun tho.. (ban cars now)
Do not despair comrade. Despite these seemingly omnipotent foes and their omnipresent empty reasoning, the future is looking bright for us. Socialism is slowly rising in numbers everywhere. Big leftist movements across the world, from America to Russia to India, are starting to swell and wise up. Already there are new technologies that will be able to contain the damage of and eventually reverse climate change; imminent apocalypse is more subvertable every day. The chains of imperialism, capitalism's biggest fuel, are weakening, and the once seemingly invincible American world police must increasingly rely on saber-rattling, less quality troops and training, and weak propaganda when incisive assassination, successful coups, and outright invasion used to be their M.O. (look to American involvement in Libya, Crimea, Syria, Bolivia, and the recent clusterfuck in Afghanistan for reference), and with less money coming in, the more these chains will weaken, a feedback loop that will ensure their break in short time.
Things will get worse before they get better, likely quite worse, but we might be able to see REAL positive change within our lifetimes.
Don't give up hope. Your despair is a sickness pumped into the air by the ruling class to immobilize the heroes of today.
@@Yet.Another.Rapper.KiG.V2 Don't worry, this comrade is standing tall and silent, preparing for when it does get worse because that's our time to strike.
@@rubysmine592 I'll see you then 😎
Convince gov to let everyone have an acre of free tax free good land.
End taxes on everyone with less than$100000 worth of property.
Put in more tax credits for helping the poor.
Replace taxes with chairty and independence.
End farm subsidies.
End mandatory school, gov mandated curriculums, and ged and hsd requirements.
End minimum wage and excessive regulations.
Ban forced and coerced treatment.
Legalize drugs.
Let people do what they want as long as they understand the risks and benefits Kno what their doing and don't endanger or touch others property without permission.
Paul Cockshott made a video long time ago which also pinpointed to an aspect commonly not mentioned against Universal Basic Income: UBI deincentivize economic progress and development, as it hides the true cost of production of labour power (it functions like a subsidy to salary) for economic agents. Why invest in new technology and methods to make production more efficient, where your wage labour is cheaper thanks to UBI?
For the poor they sometimes need immediate assistance, but they should be helped to become independent if they can work by helping them get job skills and a good job opportunity, not be dependent on a hand out forever.
The ubi would come from u if your a tax payer, so it would just be stealing from u and giving back some of your money as gov would also need some of your money to run the redistribution program, it's stupid. tax payers would be richer if they were just allowed to keep their money instead of have gov steal enuf to keep some for themself and give them back some.
And $1000 a month isn't enuf for people to live on, so many of those poor people on welfare would just choose to stay on welfare instead of get the $1000/ month cuz their welfare benifits r worth more. The only people who might benefit from the $1000 a month r poor people who currently r not getting that much in the form of money or benefits that are worth that much.
So in that case it's better to just give those poor people $1000/month or enuf to live on via taxes or chairty, and put in more tax credits for helping the poor.
Also the poor should be allowed an acre of free tax free land to live on and grow food on, and gov should end taxes on Everyone with less than $100000 worth of property. Gov shouldn't be forcing people to be poor and dependent.
End mandatory school. People should be able to learn how to do a good job they want without being forced to learn irrelevant info.
End gov mandated curriculums. End ged and hsd requirements.
Ubi is stupid. Stealing from the rich and middle class just for gov to keep some and to give them back some is stupid...
Quiet the opposite happens. Ppl have the financial security to lobby for higher paying jobs. That's what's been happening during the pandemic. It actually raises wages and inspires innovation as now I have the means to take bigger risk like starting a business.
My introduction to UBI was through Graeber's "Bullshit Jobs." I get what your saying but still believe that it can be done right (i.e. actually covers all basic needs and isn't used to strip away other benefits) then sure its not a solution but it at least gives the working class some much needed reprieve and room to better organize and demand more revolutionary steps.
Whoever owns means of production dictates availability, distribution and pricing of basic goods. So if appliances, food and other goods are produced by a class contingent on maximal reward for minimal input. Cheapest possible labour, resource, equipment and logistics by both depressing costs and using Govt subsidies then producing goods to sell at highest possible price creating massive margins which then go on to fund further depressing all costs like automating labour, down streaming via ownership of resources and lobbying for further govt subsides.. rince and repeat until you become too big, too essential and too entrenched in the economy. At that point you cannot be dictated to provide your goods for a set price... So UBI kicks in you raise prices if GOVT then attempts to intervene then corporate doctrine dictates you spitefully limit production to a level that will cause as much hardship as possible whilst blaming decrease in unfeasible govt mandate. The state then has the decision to either pay the difference of your price rise or threaten to withdraw subsidies. Again malevolent corporate doctrine will dictate you then you offest the loss of income by firing expendable staff, spending less on facilities/offices, cutting staff benefits, stopping charitable/social programs, decreasing safety/maintence ect ALL without scaling the size of your business by not selling IP, subsidiaries, preexisting contracts again blaming all this on govt.. You will still control means of production and the state will than have to fund a competitor from the ground up that can't use the resources, distribution networks, specialised equipment ect that you still have contractual rights to... So then if the state is willing to pay all that for a formation to provide the service/product at their set price they could and logically would have just paid the difference from your price rise intially..
That's the problem govts are beholden to whoever owns the means of production. Because of that they will continuously acquiesce to their demands in order for public to still have access to those basic goods they provide
Without a total overhaul that won't change. The govt in the above scenario could not do anything about the corporate spite like seizing facilities, terminating contracts or voiding IP. This would mean COMPREHENSIVE change to our current system.
You should read the French Communist Economist called Bernard Friot and his work about "Salaire à vie (life salary)" as opposed to the Universal income.
I don't know if his work exists in English, but you should definitely have a look.
Ultimately the problem is this. Near the end he argues "The only way to maintain these concessions is through a revolution of the working class, as history has shown".
But I'd counter, this isn't what history has shown. History has shown that working class revolution of the kind he's referring to can achieve many things - good and bad - in underdeveloped, mostly agrarian, and colonized countries. It can develop them to the point of industrialization in a fairly rapid period, at the cost of varying degrees of human misery. It can provide industrializing countries with some degree of increase national autonomy, to whatever extent they can afford themselves in a global economy. What history has so far *never* shown is how this works in an already post-industrial information age economy. Most of his end goals - including the cohesive organization of the working class - I completely agree with. I see the fight for things like UBI and universal healthcare as stepping stone goals to aim for on the way to building that kind of movement. What I don't understand is making all these terrible arguments against a policy he himself admits would be beneficial "under ideal circumstances". Characterizing social programs as "crumbs thrown to the working class to prevent a revolution" is just as possible to do with programs he apparently agrees with, like universal healthcare, unemployment, disability, or a job guarantee. I genuinely don't understand why this conversation is so damn goofy on the left.
I can't see the use of a UBI system if we have fully subsidised housing, health and education systems. I feel like UBI just shifts the problems around. However, this doesn't mean we shouldn't have a robust benefits system to act as a safety net for the most underprivileged in society.
This is based. At first I was going to protest that UBI could be helpful as part of a larger constellation of good policy but then he got to it at the end of the video, so I’m on the same page as hakim on this one.
I would like to see some data on how UBI impacts inflation though, it makes sense but I’ve heard there is some disagreement there but idk for sure.
The thing about landlords inflating prices is that they can basically do it whenever they want to anyway.
It's as simple as it is: in a capitalist society, whatever amount of exchange value the bank prints, it will end up accumulating into the hands of the capitalists. UBI is just some free money for all, but a lot more free money for the capitalists.
Mashallah daddy Hakim has uploaded
Mashallah daddy Naheed has commented
“Anything from more free time to erectile dysfunction” killed me lmao
True it's stupid without all sorts of pricing regulations, that generally won't happen without revolutionary actions.
Always thought the same is a superficial bribe for the working class, and if implemented it will mean everything else in your life will just get more expensive and precarious. Excellent analysis.
Thank you Hakim for this fresh perspective on UBI!!
From what is the footage you show as background?
Hakim said my name LETS GOOOOO
Of course UBI shouldn't _replace_ free healthcare, free education etc. Basic needs are more than just food and shelter to barely survive the next day.
There's a reason why Milton Friedman called it a "negative income tax". Its receptiveness to the American New Right is exactly what you claimed, and was promoted as a way to cut welfare spending. When Andrew Yang started babbling on about it, I was disappointed with sections of the American 'left' that didn't catch on.
Very good video, Hakim. Keep it up!
Be called it a negative income tax because people in the bottom 50% would be decreasingly given money, and those in the top 50% increasingly taxed. It’d a negative tax because it’s the opposite of a traditional tax. Friedman just believed in consumer choice.
@@JDG-hq8gy More like he didn't like public expenditure, particularly people on social welfare, and was under the belief that unemployment just is what it is.
Who's "the consumer"? I guess is you don't think that poor people buy stuff like TV, and cars and stuff (You'd be wrong if so).
But do you really think that you have the same 'choice range' as someone like a Warren Buffet? Do you even know what the marginal tax rate is now in your country?
If not, then STFU, you petit-bourgeois cretin. Come to me with "consumer choice", SMH.
@@JDG-hq8gy friedman was just a malthusian social darwinist
Hey Doctor, are you telling me eating 3 aspirins when I am in the middle of a heart attack doesn't help me survive... Is that what you telling me?
i was just searching a part of my name on youtube and didn't know that universal basic income existed and i saw this and i thought for a little second (without looking at the thumbnail) that someone made a rant about me calling me stupid, but now i realize, i AM actually stupid😂
This has always been a thought in the back of my head hearing people talk about UBI.
"But what's to stop the ownership class from simply increasing prices on everything?" I never really found a satisfactory answer to this. Yang certainly doesn't have one. There are virtually 0 price controls in the US.
another beef i have w UBI (from a discussion w an irl friend) is that money ≠ the means. this is a disgustingly hard topic to grapple w among the general populace of america since we're practically a post-industrial society at this point, so theres hardly any actual means of production to point to & clarify the difference in a tangible/applicable way for many workers. i assume this might be a problem in the greater "west" but i can only speak w certainty on the states.
another banger tho, jazaakAllahu khayran
Short and concise. Great vid Hakim!
The leftist version I've seen propose UBI AND universal programs.
That's what I want to see.
It's telling that an idea is bound to fail when everyone in support can't agree on a basis for it.
Great Video Ty Hakim!
Ok I will read Lenin soon I promise, just finishing the Che Biography by Anderson rn love it so far
I love your videos man! I’ve been recommending your videos to my friends. Keep up the good work
One idea is to use UBD instead of UBI (universal basic dividend), whereby corporate profits are progressively taxed and being put into a fund where every citizen earns a portion of that money. The reasoning behind the taxation is that we, the people, add to the capital of those companies, and therefore earn some of it in return, like when the capital of Google grows when you use Google maps.
You've radicalized me and I cannot thank you enough.
As a socialist, I think we should implement a UBI even if the whole world was socialist. We shouldn't demand that people work to have their basic needs covered. A roof, clothes, warm food, health and entertainment, everyone should have that solely for living in a society.
Well, we could just provide food and clothes and healthcare for free rather than using ubi.
@@electrichanoi7244 You can't just provide food and clothes for free. There are a lot of foods, how will it be distributed if it's free? Do we ration it and if we do, for example, distribute to everyone 5kg of rice and someone doesn't like rice, it will either lead to spoiled food or black markets where people will barter food and it could lead to restoration of markets. You could also distribute it with "first come, first served" principle but what happens if someone just takes a lot of scarce food types and spices like saffron, quality beef cuts, etc. Healthcare can be free because demand is inelastic, nobody is going to get antibiotics, cough syrup or hip replacement because it's free.
Better system is system where labor is paid with labor vouchers. For example you work 160 hours a month and at the end of the month you're pre-tax salary is 160h and you get something like 100-120 hours(rest is used for "free" stuff like healthcare, pensioners, kids, bureaucrats and other non-working people). Now you have freedom to spend your earned labor vouchers how ever you want and food prices as any other price would be priced with their labor content, for example let's say kilogram of apples costs 15 minutes of labor but a good new car costs about 6000 hours.
This way we avoid to force workers to pay for what they don't want and sometimes for what they consider immoral and everyone labors for what they want and therefore can actually, as collective, affect economy in a way they see fit. Vegans surely don't want to work for society where meat is provided for free, Hindus wouldn't support beef getting distributed for free and Muslims/Jews could have objections to paying pork and other non-haram/non-kosher food. If demand is registered trough network of computers, fall in demand would be registered in a day or less and therefore industry that produces those goods could lower their output and this response would be quick, for example if veganism becomes popular, meat factories would lower their meat production because there is no reason to produce it but if food is free lowering output of meat factories would be a political decision which people need to gather around, contact their representatives/delegates and it would take a conscious effort to change a system.
TL;DR Free stuff works with inelastic demand and where we don't have large variety of products, in socialism/communism limited markets should exist for consumer goods.
In a socialist/communist society, it would work. This system is far too authoritarian. UBI has a different meaning applied here.
@@ionezgb Well said. Only thing I wouldn't agree with is, there would have to be markets. Even in socialism. Because I would probably want different furniture than you and you would want different clothes than your neighbor and he would want different food than you and so on. We're all different. On a short scale, we would need markets to provide for all different needs.
Mortgage/rental assistance, Investment in building housing, limit ownership of residential property to two properties, revoking mandatory minimum parking laws, enforce wages to be tied to productivity by law, fight for labor unions, enforce immigration laws strictly, forbid foreign ownership of land, institute a land value tax, a single layer healthcare system, nationalize the pharmaceutical industry and; universal basic income. Oh an acquisition tax which minimizes merges and business acquisitions.
This is a society I wanna live in.
Great stuff. You really articulated some thoughts I've had in a way that is significantly easier to communicate to others who might not even understand all of what UBI is.
I think the UBI is inevitable with automation. I think if jobs get automated ever job loss should get paid the wage directly paid into a ubi pot. So if 30% of jobs are made cheap by robots there should be a 30% pot so everyone gets to benifits. Everone should benefit from automation not just the wealthy. If no "simple" work exists because of automation the ubi would indeed help 80% of people to pursue hobbies and arts without living on the streets.
What if instead of UBI we made it so certain things (food, housing, clothing, water, healthcare, transport and a job) where inalienable things that cannot be monetized ?
@@davidegaruti2582 making food unable to be monetized in the US unironically sounds impossible, then again, most of everything else you’ve said has been done before
@@thekycklingwizard78 well today at least. One day it might be possible. Although I don't fully support it. I think everyone should guaranteed to getting their daily nutrition needs met, but still have private restaurants, snacks, etc on the market. I support everyone's basic needs to be met FIRST, and then have a private market on the side for anything more. Except for in healthcare or education or the military, that should never be privatized imo
@@austinhernandez2716 Based take
@@austinhernandez2716 ok , but how would a market be profitable in this condition ?
Also why a market in this condition ?
Is it really the most practical solution ?
Or does it just create pepole that resent paying taxes and might want to privatize things again one day ?
I agree heavily with the statement that "UBI is but the demands of a broken working class without a future prospect" and to sustain it better I would advise you to look further the more extended examples of this kind of programs in Latinoamerica, especially the Brazilian case with "Renta basica" and Argentinian with "AUH" (universal sons assignation). These are great examples of what you are arguing and more clear and extended than the US case with food coupons or the recent government fonds under Covid. One more argument (and considering the last examples) against UBI is how corrupt governments use it as control mechanism on the more disadvantage sectors of society since they can retain the distribution of this funds on empowered populations that depend entirely on them to sustain themselves.
About your last point: let's not confuse UBI with other public handouts. The nature of UBI is (like its name mentions) the universality: it's an unrestricted payment to all citizens, which means it can't be retained for political reasons or restricting requirements. The most affected sectors with UBI would be undocumented immigrants.
@@Ajente02 The thing is that "the other public handouts" are the actual politics from witch actual political alliances are discussing UBI witch is still theoretical and never have been fully implemented anywhere. The video mentions the recent US covid "handouts" and food stamps programs as examples (witch neither are forms of UBI) but are the bases polices from witch UBI is being discus.
On the issue of "cant be retained for political reasons" I d suggest to not underestimate the extent that corruption gets in the third word. This has and is already happening and It might be difficult to imagine (or looks to out there) from a first word country perspective but it is a very real thing.
Outro?
Also is there an english translation of the lyrics u trust?
Thanks.
I already listened to this a while ago, then I saw it again in my notifications and thought it said USB and was a video from one of my tech channels. I was like.. oh? What's wrong with USB lol.
Yoooo Hakim with all these uploads being so close together!
Also remember that listening to an audiobook or even someone you trust doing a breakdown of theory is just as good if you lack the time or are intellectually disabled/challenged. Theory is theory, you don't just have to read to get the ideas into someone's head.
Where do you get this footage? I’ve seen similar like this of Japan
Nice video. At first I was very sceptical of the title but you made some very good arguments.
The Solution to the problems would be to tie UBI to GDP at 30% of the GDP and that would be the solution to any problems! Our government can do any budget they want for whatever they want and give money to corporations for trickle down which does not which since they do stock buybacks with that!
They make concessions to us but change will not come from above! Workers of the world UNITE! Long live the REVOLUTION!
UNIVERSAL BASIC NEEDS PROGRAM!
Or, I mean, the State uses the noney from taxes to buy the basics and gives that basics it to everybody. Healthy food (and water in most cases) every month or second weekend, clothes (at least resistent underwear) every year and a small/medium size medikit every six months.
Aside of already solved the homelessness, the medical care, education, security and public transport issues. This is the proper human dignity.
Can we expect a continuation of the wage labour explained series?
-"Of course this ignores the usual infinite growth on a finite planet problem, but we can ignore that for now".
Yeah, I agree. A UBI is not a restructuring of the entire economic system into a form that properly addresses this. But neither was the USSR, nor is China, so y'know, not the easiest problem to solve.
-UBI reduces bureaucracy, and billionaires support it:
Yes it can, and yes, they do. People who make this point from the socialist anti-UBI side have a habit of citing the people "on the right" or "of the bourgeois class" who support it, and ignore those who don't and the left wing proponents like MLK, Yanis Varoufakis, and David Graeber among others. I've learned to essentially take this point as an attempt to poison the well, and believe it should be discounted for the purpose of discussing specific UBI proposals.
-"What stops banks from withholding UBI from people to pay rent, debts etc.?"
I mean, the law. If it's legal to do it, they might, and if it's illegal, then they won't. People fight to change the law - if they don't like it, think it's unjust or if it has bad outcomes - all the time in many countries around the world. Y'know, assuming they're not prevented from doing so by, for example, laws prohibiting freedom of assembly and protest or something.
-"What if prices and rents capture all the new money"
This argument could be equally employed against state funded infrastructure and jobs programs as well as increases to the minimum wage or basically any mechanism that increases the overall amount of money that the average person has available to them. People moving from low wage jobs to higher paying government infrastructure jobs creates higher demand for workers in lower paying jobs, increasing their bargaining power, and essentially giving the average person more money. If this is your attitude toward redistribution, then a) you're fighting against the evidence collected by decades of studies on the impact of minimum wage on cost of living and employment. b) All available data on UBI experiments around the world, and c) you should oppose all redistribution of wealth to the working class/poor/middle class, on the basis that it *might* be sucked up entirely by the landlords, bankers, and capitalists.
-"Why do you need public transportation or universal healthcare if you have a UBI?"
Because they solve different problems. Universal healthcare addresses the inelasticity of the healthcare industry, and public transport (and walkable urban redesign) addresses a whole host of problems, from sprawling suburbs bankrupting cities, to easing road and highway congestion. Nobody on the Right at the moment is advancing a UBI, so this seems like a strawman. The only people really pushing for it seriously at the level of trying to get policy passed are also for universal healthcare and public transport.
-"Why would you need unemployment insurance if you already have UBI"
Well, because you pay into it. It's earnings. When they run out, you get nothing, or you get a reduced rate lower than a popular proposed UBI would be anyway. The fear that you might need some separate program other than a UBI after your EI runs out is entirely resting on the premise that UBI will inflate cost of living to the extent that it makes UBI basically meaningless, and the best arguments for this are conjecture, and again, apply just as well to *any* general increase to the purchasing power of the poor/middle class.
-VAT is a regressive tax
No, you can tax luxury goods at higher rates, and exclude necessities, but even if you don't do that, then yes a VAT would be regressive if not for the the fact that you get a rebate, and the wealthy get more than the UBI is worth taxed away via income tax (as well as VAT), and ideally, a wealth/capital gains tax.
-Undocumented immigrants don't get UBI, and neither do prisoners
True, under most proposals. They also don't get government subsidies already. Are you saying that China, or some as yet unrealized ideal socialist country would give undocumented immigrants a UBI, unemployment insurance, or accept unlimited immigration?
I'm only like halfway through...
TLDR: none of these are good arguments against UBI. Arguments against it tend to rely on unfounded fears and assumptions, or on arguing as if UBI proponents offer UBI as a magic bullet policy to fix all socioeconomic problems, as if we think we could abolish government and half the legal system except for the UBI department or something. 😛
I unpause for just a second, and again:
"Even if it would be pegged to inflation, you'd be nieve to think that this wouldn't go along with the destruction of social programs as a dedicated goal of the ruling class"
Yo, here's a question. What is it that's exceptional about a UBI that gives them extra incentive toward this end, or gives them extra leverage and power to achieve it? Destruction of social programs is *already* the dedicated goal of some segment of the "ruling class". Is your argument really that the only thing preventing them is they lack sufficient ideological justification that UBI would provide? After decades of running think tanks to produce an industry of right wing PR?
Ultimately the problem is this. Near the end he argues "The only way to maintain these concessions is through a revolution of the working class, as history has shown".
But I'd counter, this isn't what history has shown. History has shown that working class revolution of the kind he's referring to can achieve many things - good and bad - in underdeveloped, mostly agrarian, and colonized countries. It can develop them to the point of industrialization in a fairly rapid period, at the cost of varying degrees of human misery. It can provide industrializing countries with some degree of increase national autonomy, to whatever extent they can afford themselves in a global economy. What history has so far *never* shown is how this works in an already post-industrial information age economy. Most of his end goals - including the cohesive organization of the working class - I completely agree with. I see the fight for things like UBI and universal healthcare as stepping stone goals to aim for on the way to building that kind of movement. What I don't understand is making all these terrible arguments against a policy he himself admits would be beneficial "under ideal circumstances". Characterizing social programs as "crumbs thrown to the working class to prevent a revolution" is just as possible to do with programs he apparently agrees with, like universal healthcare, unemployment, disability, or a job guarantee. I genuinely don't understand why this conversation is so damn goofy on the left.
@@ChaotePD I think Hakim realizes Ubi is a necessary step forward. Every good thing for the 99% is one more step forward, and clearly UBI is one of those.
@@YourCapyBro_windows95_3DPipes no, it is a bad thing, unless you get paid a middle classes' worth of ubi money, it will be just another way for the borgoise class to enslave the workers and prevent them from rebelling, watch the vid and take note of every point, as i did.
Has Hakim ever heard of how UBI programs helped brazillians to overcome extreme poverty, lower child labor and improve educational outcomes ? I don't think so
Great video, nevertheless
How do you feel about the idea of a managerial revolution?
Hakim Bro… is it Ok To Translate some of your videos & Publish them ?!?
I've had some heated debate with peers about this. Your video aligns with what I have been arguing for some time. UBI can work. UBI can't work without other supporting changes in the West.
The ubi would come from u if your a tax payer, so it would just be stealing from u and giving back some of your money as gov would also need some of your money to run the redistribution program, it's stupid. tax payers would be richer if they were just allowed to keep their money instead of have gov steal enuf to keep some for themself and give them back some.
And $1000 a month isn't enuf for people to live on, so many of those poor people on welfare would just choose to stay on welfare instead of get the $1000/ month cuz their welfare benifits r worth more. The only people who might benefit from the $1000 a month r poor people who currently r not getting that much in the form of money or benefits that are worth that much.
So in that case it's better to just give those poor people $1000/month or enuf to live on via taxes or chairty, and put in more tax credits for helping the poor.
Also the poor should be allowed an acre of free tax free land to live on and grow food on, and gov should end taxes on Everyone with less than $100000 worth of property. Gov shouldn't be forcing people to be poor and dependent.
End mandatory school. People should be able to learn how to do a good job they want without being forced to learn irrelevant info.
End gov mandated curriculums. End ged and hsd requirements.
Ubi is stupid. Stealing from the rich and middle class just for gov to keep some and to give them back some is stupid...
Amazing work, Hakim. Please, keep it up.
Consider making a video on an overproduction crisis?
Is there any chance you can make a video ranking countries from the farthest from your ideology to the closest ones to your ideology?
Can you do a video about social credit? Is this good or bad and your thoughts on it
Ubi doesn't even feel like reform but more like forcibly HAVING to give people a check every month in order to stimulate the economy at a point when all of people's jobs (if they have them) cannot compensate their existence
Punchy. Great stuff as usual!
Hakim, either I'm crazy or you have soft radio music playing behind your videos. I need a source for this. please.
Thank you Hakim this helps me understand UBI and why rich people support it so much better.
Do a video on medicine.
🎵Although they offer us concessions, change will not come from above 🎵
--Billy Bragg's The Internationale
Curious what you think of Michael Hudson and MMT'ers?
Great work Hakim. I hear too many on the left think ubi is a viable option the last few years.
I haven't heard any genuine socialists discuss it seriously.
@@freshmarex3538 true, but there are many too lazy to do the reading that do.
@@Wealthforthe99Percent I think it shouldn't require too much reading - the project is that blatantly geared to suit the interests of the financial elite. In fact, the only person who wanted to talk to me seriously about it was a right-winger seeking to show how "pro-social" capitalism can be... Figures.
@@freshmarex3538 agreed
I think Michael Hudson, who is the only mainstream adjacent economist besides Wolff I've seen talk about Marx, was(is?) in favor of UBI.
I fully support ubi because as a disabled person if you can't find a partner willing to help you, you're pretty much fucked. And if that partner is abusive you're even more fucked.
Absolutely. Hope you're ok, friend.
as you pointed out, it's no substitute for revolution.
"Landlords for UBI" 😂😂
Came into this video very skeptical because of the title. As a poor person, calling the only chance at income i have, that really bothers me. But, your explanation changed my mind. I’m still a supporter of UBI as I still have no income at all. But, your issues you raised are 100% make or break issues. If UBI isn’t implemented correctly, it could very well make things worse. Great video, but I srsly don’t like the title still. Literally gave me a trauma response. But I appreciate your explanation.
People living in trauma usually have normal reactions and triggers. If you’ve suffered long enough, of course you’re going to feel that way. Understandable. 👍
i'm just going to always specify what i mean by UBI because the assumption that people who want more money also want their expenses to go up is pretty fucking stupid. so when i say UBI i'm referring specifically to what you described at the end of the video
I do think that students and stay at home parents should get a UBI based on the cost of living. Something similar to MITs stipend which is about ~$4k a month but that's because the cost of living in Boston is absurdly high. Either way it shouldn't be any lower than $2k a month anything less than that is insulting. Students cannot focus on their education if they have to waste time doing more work simply so they don't die. This also allows time and money for networking which is critical for getting jobs after school and well, having a social life is just as much a need as eating.
I mean Denmark has a sort of pre alpha version of UBI. It’s a system where you can apply for a check each month if you’re unemployed. It seems to work somewhat alright but the people that receive the money are pretty harshly stigmatized and frowned upon.
The US (where I live) actually used to have a semi-ok welfare system until it was trashed in favor of something far inferior in 1996, and it's been that way ever since. It's a real shame. It's made it significantly harder for vulnerable, needy, or desperate people to get out of poverty.
I had mixed feelings about UBI. Thank you for your thoughtful analysis.
"Bandaids don't fix bullet holes" -Matthew 11:28
one big question remains which mob are you voting for during minecon live?
Wow, I never considered this stuff about UBI. Been binging your videos lately, thank you for the educational content
In other words you’d be $1000 richer with same problems you have now.
So would you say no to $1000 right now?
@@noobslayeru no.
@@izzybro7747 you’re high af.