Universal Basic Income: gaining traction

[Iamwhomiam]

d&c, the wealth that did trickle down during the post-war years - are you referring to the lowering of the 91% income tax upon the wealthy being reduced to what it is today, less than 25%?

In the 1950s and 1960s, when the economy was booming, the wealthiest Americans paid a top income tax rate of 91%. Today, the top rate is 43.4%. The richest 1% pay an effective federal income tax rate of 24.7% in 2014; someone making an average of $75,000 is paying a 19.7% rate.

'Cause if you're not, you really seem have little understanding of our history or of the economics of the times. Since the war, the upward flow of cash has been increasing while workers' wages stagnated.

[dada]

Dada, you terrorist.

Yes?

I agree with you about the nail soup story. The cottage owner is about to turn away someone who is down on their luck, refusing to give shelter. Her excuse is "You'll eat all my food, of which I don't have any. Go away." She only lets the traveler in because she thinks she can exploit him. This is a rotten person.

The traveler cures her of her rottenness, gently leading her to real human beinghood. He has a gift, she has a gift. He is good company, makes cooking supper fun. She has property. They share. At the end, she has the nail. Now she can be the one who makes it fun.

Am I suggesting property is no greater than good company? You bet I am. A dangerous lesson in this day and age, to be sure!

When I first heard this story it was "stone soup." In the stone soup entry on the holy wiki, there are different views of the story.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stone_Soup

There's the positive view: "Although the travelers have thus tricked the villagers into sharing their food with them, they have successfully transformed it into a tasty and nutritious meal which they share with the donors."

The negative: "William Butler Yeats' play, The Pot of Broth (1904), tells a version of the story in which a clever Irish tramp uses his wits to swindle a shrewish medieval housewife out of her dinner"

It's even a military tactic: "US Army General George S. Patton, Jr. referred to the "rock soup method" of acquiring resources for attacks in the face of official disapproval by his superiors for offensive operations. In the military context, he sent units forward, ostensibly on reconnaissance missions, to later reinforce them when resistance was met, and these missions eventually turned small scale probes into all out attacks"

Yeah, fine, but what does this say about the universal basic nail soup?
Is universal basic income positive in some sense?
Is universal basic income negative in some sense.
Is universal basic income a military tactic in some sense?
Is universal basic income positive and negative in some sense?
Positive and a military tactic in some sense?
Negative and a military tactic in some sense?
Positive, negative, and a military tactic in some sense?

In some sense. But we each have our favorite on that list of questions, clearly. I like "positive military tactic," myself.

I'd like to point out... don't look at my finger, look at what I'm pointing at! Jesus, you people sometimes. shake my head. Look, an elephant.

"Anekāntavāda (Sanskrit: अनेकान्तवाद, "many-sidedness") refers to the principles of pluralism and multiplicity of viewpoints, or vantage points, the notion that reality is perceived differently from diverse points of view, and that no single point of view is the complete truth, yet taken together they comprise the complete truth.

Jains contrast all attempts to proclaim the sole monopoly on truth with andhagajanyāyah, which can be illustrated through the parable of the "blind men and an elephant". In this story, each blind man felt a different part of an elephant (trunk, leg, ear, etc.). All the men claimed to understand and explain the true appearance of the elephant, but could only partly succeed, due to their limited perspectives.

This principle is more formally stated by observing that objects are infinite in their qualities and modes of existence, so they cannot be completely grasped in all aspects and manifestations by finite human perception. (This is the Absolute Truth.) According to the Jains, only the Kevalis—omniscient beings—can comprehend objects in all aspects and manifestations; others are only capable of partial knowledge. Consequently, no single, specific, human view can claim to represent absolute truth.

You know, Ācārya Siddhasena Divākara expounded on the nature of truth in the court of King Vikramāditya:

Vikramāditya: What is 'truth'? That which is said repeatedly, that which is said loudly, that which is said with authority or that which is agreed by the majority?

Divākara: None of the above. Every one has his own definition of 'truth' and that it is conditional.

Vikramāditya: How about traditions? They have been established by our ancestors and have passed the test of time?

Divākara: Would the system established by ancestors hold true on examination? In case it does not, I am not here to justify it for the sake of saving the traditional grace of the dead, irrespective of the wrath I may have to face.

— Ācārya Siddhasena Divākara, Vardhamana Dvātrimṣikā, 6/2

[minime]

Just so, dada. With local variations. I use both the stone and a nail in my soup, as both may impart essential nutrients.

To a hammer, everything is a nail.

Carry on. Fight the good fight.

Say hi to mama.

[Iamwhomiam]

Ball Peens would argue the point.

[minime]

[Iamwhomiam]

[divideandconquer]

Luther Blissett

expects "it to be much more like weekends, the 8-hour workday, the end of child labor, or workplace safety — only won through hard-fought organization and activism. History bears this out much more than the dystopian version."

I don't agree. History does not bear out this utopian version that wins "through hard-fought organization and activism," grassroots energy and morale. The age Luther describes--roughly between 1940 and1970-- is an anomaly, a blip on the radar of history. At the end of WWII, they needed a strong middle class to build the technological grid that would later enslave us and to build the great wealth they could later plunder.

Since 9/11, especially, they've stepped up the encroachment laws; stepped up enforcement; stepped up indoctrination, and robbed us of our wealth to the point where, even if we had the time/energy/inclination to fight back--which we don't-- we wouldn't stand a chance.

Like anything else, "enslavement" is a matter of degree, measured by the scale of intensity at any point in time. Those of us born in the 20th century, born in the US, born the right color, etc., were lucky enough to experience "enslavement" with so many benefits, freedoms and perks that we didn't realize we were enslaved at all. But this blip on the radar of history has come to an end. In other words, "Universal Income" is not the "New Deal".

However, having said that, the "New Deal" was not created by benevolent masters. It was a necessary step that appeared to build us up in the short run, but in reality, set us up to trust a government that would later become the boot that crushes and cashes in.

Out of curiosity, how do you picture a free world? What kind of social order, what kind of financial policies etc.?

You mean a world free from oppression, domination, exploitation, inequality and injustice...in other words, heaven on earth? I do not believe that's possible. The world system is what it is, and that's precisely why we should never give up and blindly trust those who tell us otherwise.

Take the United States. We the people believe we're essentially free. This dangerous blinding illusion is so powerful that we ignore, reject, protest, etc., any evidence that proves otherwise. We take appearances for reality, error for truth, dogma for science, and basically accept whatever officialdom spews out, no matter how much it conflicts with what's right in front of our faces.

The bottom line is that government, the system, or whatever it is that imposes order upon society will never have our best interest at heart no matter how much they claim the opposite is true. Having said that, I don't believe abolishing it is the answer...just hold it accountable, constantly question, and never ever trust it.

As I've said many times before, as unpopular as it makes me on here, I'm a Christian and I believe we have to be in this world, but not of it. All we can do is struggle to do our best to make the world the best it can be even if all we can do is open people's eyes to the truth: the system does not have your back.

[Luther Blissett]

The worker's struggle and the gains they brought far pre-date World War II, and even the Industrial Revolution. The middle of the century only appears as a blip if you aren't measuring the aspects of modern life that are radically distinctive to human history. The progression of time used to crawl much slower, and this is not "the natural order of the world."

In many ways these radically new external forces hinder middle of the century progress, but I think what people are missing is the ways in which these external forces pave the way for radical progress. What are the ways in which the contemporary era is markedly different than any other time in human history? Democratization of information exchange and the ability to connect to most people in the world? Burgeoning automation? Even the negative unique conditions of modern life — the highest concentration of greenhouse gases in human history, living under history's single strongest and most technologically advanced military force, the most drastic inequality the world has ever seen, vast depletion of natural resources, etc. — these are all weaknesses of the ruling class and keys through which the people can promote progress.

Universal basic income is just one form of progress that could come out of the people rising up and banding together in a mass movement. It really is just one step on the way to the abolition of debt and, by extension, capitalism. It will demonstrate to the people of the world the entire fallacy of money.

There will never be a full employment society, only far less. So now what do we do about it? It doesn't seem as though it's a very smart idea to let the robots do all the work and to let a very small ruling class reap all the profits from the excess productivity and saved wages.

[Iamwhomiam]

And here I thought I was reading about Trump's time of hardship on his way to becoming a millionaire!

A great story about how easy it is to fool and take advantage of an ignorant member of the proletariat. We admire his shrewdness without pitying the peon and ignore his victim and her lose.

A lonely, suspicious old woman is duped into sharing a delicious meal made by a stranger, giving her a warm memory and a story to tell for the rest of her life. Dada, you terrorist.

No one I know or have read interprets the story as you have. What a twisted point of view. No wonder you're here.

Hee hee, for that last sentence minime. I get that a lot. There was no bias in what I wrote, though. I always try to examine situations from all perspectives, so I simply related another the story itself distracted from recognizing. As I earlier wrote, this time a bit differently, each individual benefited from the others dishonesty, the shrewder of the two clearly is the man, who gained a tale, a coin, shelter and a meal - and the memories. What's her gain compared with her lose? Has she another coin to replace the food he's eaten?

Therefore, fuck the capitalist profiteering pig.

[divideandconquer]

The worker's struggle and the gains they brought far pre-date World War II, and even the Industrial Revolution. The middle of the century only appears as a blip if you aren't measuring the aspects of modern life that are radically distinctive to human history. The progression of time used to crawl much slower, and this is not "the natural order of the world."

In many ways these radically new external forces hinder middle of the century progress, but I think what people are missing is the ways in which these external forces pave the way for radical progress. What are the ways in which the contemporary era is markedly different than any other time in human history? Democratization of information exchange and the ability to connect to most people in the world? Burgeoning automation? Even the negative unique conditions of modern life — the highest concentration of greenhouse gases in human history, living under history's single strongest and most technologically advanced military force, the most drastic inequality the world has ever seen, vast depletion of natural resources, etc. — these are all weaknesses of the ruling class and keys through which the people can promote progress.

Universal basic income is just one form of progress that could come out of the people rising up and banding together in a mass movement. It really is just one step on the way to the abolition of debt and, by extension, capitalism. It will demonstrate to the people of the world the entire fallacy of money.

There will never be a full employment society, only far less. So now what do we do about it? It doesn't seem as though it's a very smart idea to let the robots do all the work and to let a very small ruling class reap all the profits from the excess productivity and saved wages.

Let me be clear. I have nothing against universal income in the way you describe it, or in principle. My problem is with those in power, those who will control its distribution.

At first, I'm sure it will appear to work to our benefit, and it probably will. Kind of like the Internet. However, gradually, they will start to impose conditions and docking pay for failure to brush your teeth three times a day, failure to eat properly, failure to exercise, failure to get vaccinations, failure to turn out your lights, and so on. In other words, total control of every aspect of your life.

But, If it works out the way you describe...GREAT!

[Iamwhomiam]

The importance of creating a parallel economy cannot be understated and will be needed to ease the transition to a circular economy.

[KUAN]

Excuse me dear chap but it's, 'cannot be overstated', a maddeningly common mistake...

[PufPuf93]

The worker's struggle and the gains they brought far pre-date World War II, and even the Industrial Revolution. The middle of the century only appears as a blip if you aren't measuring the aspects of modern life that are radically distinctive to human history. The progression of time used to crawl much slower, and this is not "the natural order of the world."

In many ways these radically new external forces hinder middle of the century progress, but I think what people are missing is the ways in which these external forces pave the way for radical progress. What are the ways in which the contemporary era is markedly different than any other time in human history? Democratization of information exchange and the ability to connect to most people in the world? Burgeoning automation? Even the negative unique conditions of modern life — the highest concentration of greenhouse gases in human history, living under history's single strongest and most technologically advanced military force, the most drastic inequality the world has ever seen, vast depletion of natural resources, etc. — these are all weaknesses of the ruling class and keys through which the people can promote progress.

Universal basic income is just one form of progress that could come out of the people rising up and banding together in a mass movement. It really is just one step on the way to the abolition of debt and, by extension, capitalism. It will demonstrate to the people of the world the entire fallacy of money.

There will never be a full employment society, only far less. So now what do we do about it? It doesn't seem as though it's a very smart idea to let the robots do all the work and to let a very small ruling class reap all the profits from the excess productivity and saved wages.

Let me be clear. I have nothing against universal income in the way you describe it, or in principle. My problem is with those in power, those who will control its distribution.

At first, I'm sure it will appear to work to our benefit, and it probably will. Kind of like the Internet. However, gradually, they will start to impose conditions and docking pay for failure to brush your teeth three times a day, failure to eat properly, failure to exercise, failure to get vaccinations, failure to turn out your lights, and so on. In other words, total control of every aspect of your life.

But, If it works out the way you describe...GREAT!

Universal Basic Income by social groups if not by the State seems very Christian to me.

My impression from various reading is that early Christians (and Jesus during his active ministry) were communal and egalitarian/

[Iamwhomiam]

Thank you Kuan. I appreciate anyone helping me to be a better writer. How should I better express the sentiment? "Should not be underestimated"?

Would you please explain for me what's wrong with my grammar faux pas or why "...cannot be understated" should not be used.

I accept your criticism as valid but want to better understand why. Thank you.

[KUAN]

I've never actually looked it up but have always understood ' can never be overstated' to mean; you can never say too much about how important a point is because it's very important.

..... rather than, can never say too little because it's not