Universal Basic Income: Biden's Best Bet?

[danielpalos]

We don't or should not have have a supply problem with supply side economics; we only have a demand problem, which solving for simple poverty can solve.

Aggregate demand is being constricted (strangled) by debt in the Land of the Free (Market):

Neofeudalism and the Parasite Economy — Summarizing Michael Hudson

"There are two economies, the 'real' economy and the rentier/parasite economy.

• "The real economy consists of activity that actually contributes to society (eg. farming, manufacturing, healthcare)
• The parasite economy extracts wealth away from the real economy, adding unnecessary overhead to and shrinking the real economy. This is comprised of the FIRE sector (Finance, Insurance, Real Estate), monopolies, etc.

"43% of income goes to mortgage debt service in America. 10–15% go to healthcare. Student loans are another 5–30%, then there’s automobile debt, 10–20% going to taxes, etc.

"This means that over 2/3 of one’s income is siphoned off to the parasite overlords.

"This shrinks the real economy, forcing it into greater austerity and debt while the rentier sector enjoys the gains."

Raising the minimum wage should help; higher paid labor creates more in demand and generates more in federal income tax revenue.

 

[danielpalos]

Employment is at the will of either party.

How so?

Employers do not have to hire me even in Right to Work States.

Of course they don't. Employers are not required to hire anyone, much less whiny dickbags like yourself.

Employment is at-will. I automatically qualify for unemployment compensation.

So if everyone under the equal protections laws automatically qualify for unemployment compensation, why should anyone work?

Capitalism, what is That sayeth the Right Wing every time it comes up.

Shut up faggot

I gainsay your contention, want to argue about it?

You babble senseless bullshit. Biden is not the chief magistrate of anything.

You are simply clueless and Causeless like any typical right winger.

Shut up faggot

Parler misses you.

Quit ruining threads you little faggot and my space misses you.

Nothing but right wing Hoax is all you have.

Hey Danny faggot my left nut can break a peanut

This is how serious the right wing is about the general welfare. They take more interest in the general warfare on a for-profit basis.

Whoopie Goldberg had several abortions. What is compassion and what is being a slut that has had success as being privileged? And then what avenue of broadcasting shill does someone become a spokesperson for a movement that is insane? We all pay for it. And we call it freedom. It is not when someone else pays the tab. The inner city has been doing this for over 60 years with the great society. Trillions and trillions and trillions more spent.

I can't take you seriously until you acknowledge we don't have a general warfare clause and you advocate for cutting the discretionary spending of our alleged wars on crime, drugs, and terror.

 

[danielpalos]

Equal protection of the law for unemployment compensation in our at-will employment States could be accomplished by executive order.

Automatic stabilization of our economy now!

How can we have unused productive capacity and mass unemployment at the same time?

What Is the Output Gap? - Back to Basics - Finance & Development, September 2013

"The output gap is an economic measure of the difference between the actual output of an economy and its potential output.

"Potential output is the maximum amount of goods and services an economy can turn out when it is most efficient—that is, at full capacity.

"Often, potential output is referred to as the production capacity of the economy."

We don't or should not have have a supply problem with supply side economics; we only have a demand problem, which solving for simple poverty can solve.

So that would be 1000 dollars times 12 time 350 million a year. That equals 4 trillion and 200 billion dollars a year. So all those tax increases that is proposed. What would the lower classes be on the hook for? That may destabilize the economy. The increases in prices of everything may be very high inflation to hyper inflation. I am not an economist though.

Inflation should not be a problem with supply side economics. That is why we need to increase the minimum wage so capitalists can automate for their bottom line.

Taxation is just not the Federal Wage Income Tax and the social Security/Medicare Tax. There are many taxes and many hidden ones. they add up. That is part of what make people who earn the minimum salaries tough. Those taxes and fees are embedded in everything we do. Its like a cycle that has to keep pushing the wage up as the taxes increase and the inflation rises. We do not even get the official amount of money in circulation anymore from the government as they are printing it up to keep the system solvent.

Higher paid labor creates more in demand and generates more in tax revenue. A positive multiplier applies.

So let's lay off everyone who earns less than $50/hr. That'll work wonders.

Your idea not mine; why don't You, take point on it?

I'm illustrating your absurdity by being absurd. You're enamored with paying everyone more so they pay more in taxes, I'm just pointing out that it comes at a price, something you won't acknowledge. And guess who would be hit the hardest by the lack of jobs when we double the MW overnight?

Young, unskilled, uneducated black men, that's who would be hit the hardest. Did you realize that you would be doing that?

Full employment is too difficult a concept for the right wing?

Do you really believe that making labor more expensive will result in more jobs being available? Because if you do, you're even loonier than I thought.

I am saying we need an institutional upward pressure on wages; unemployment compensation for simply being unemployed solves simple poverty and renders your only excuse, moot.

 

[gipper]

Almost everyone's aware of Alaska's Permanent Fund:

"...The program began in 1976 after the discovery of oil on Alaska’s North Slope.

"The then-governor, a renegade Republican named Jay Hammond, concluded that this windfall was too good to just give to the oil companies.

"So he devised the program to share the revenue with Alaska residents...."

"OK, here’s the idea for President-elect Biden:

"Bring 20 of the Trumpiest-looking Alaskans to a press conference.

"Unveil a plan whereby every man, woman, and child gets a $1,000 check every month from the government.

"Finance it with taxes on large wealth, fossil fuels, financial transactions, and intellectual property resulting from taxpayer-funded public research.

"Invite the Alaskans to describe the joy of getting their checks: no middleman, no means tests, no government forms to fill out—just free money as everyone’s share of the American commons.

"Dare Mitch McConnell to oppose it."

A Big, Simple, Winning Issue for Biden

The "American commons" are the cultural and natural resources accessible to all members of society. In a time when the privileged few expand their vast fortunes despite a global pandemic and recession, it seems fitting to socialize the profits and privatize the losses.

Does anyone believe "Delaware Joe" will turn on his corporate benefactors?

Joe won’t do that, though he should. He’s a neocon, but cons and libs don’t know it.

 

[danielpalos]

They want to give free college, but why go to college if you get a basic income, sounds like a waste of time to get educated for nothing.....

I don't think many Americans would be content to live on their UBI stipend. Such a supplement might prevent a few medical bankruptcies, but I doubt if it produces a new US leisure class.

As far as education's concerned, understanding the world you live in has a value that far exceeds how much money you can exchange for your daily toil.

I believe we should solve simple poverty by solving for the deleterious effects of Capitalism's natural rate of unemployment with unemployment compensation for simply being unemployed in an at-will employment State. How much more market friendly can it get, with automatic stabilization of our economy?

 

[georgephillip]

Think of the opportunity cost of taking an additional 4 trillion out of the economy.

Where are we taking the $4 trillion from?

Would you sacrifice 4 trillion dollars from Wall Street speculators, FIRE sector shareholders, and the Pentagon in order to gain an equal amount of consumption and investment?

Monopoly Capital - Wikipedia

"Fourth, military spending does not compete with capitalist interests in the same way as civilian spending and through imperialism serves to enhance those interests.

"Therefore, military spending is able to expand to a degree civilian spending is not, providing an important outlet for surplus absorption."

 

[georgephillip]

Just a quick question. What resources are the other 49 states going to provide for this windfall of cash?

As of October 2020 the richest 400 Americans had a combined net worth of $3.2 trillion; there was a total billionaire count of 614 billionaires, a record high

Socialize the profits.
Privatize the losses.

Billionaire Wealth, U.S. Job Losses and Pandemic Profiteers - The Total Report

 

[dblack]

Hard to believe there are people stupid enough to feel a free $1000/month would solve their financial problems or anyone's financial problems. They can't seem to see anything beyond their fricken nose.

They’re so fucking stupid they think they will get that check without effecting everyone else and the economy will stay the same. It’s exactly what every communist/ socialist country has thought before. Right up until it all crashes down and they didn’t get the riches for nothing they thought they would, look no further than Venezuela for how universal income has worked.

This topic seems to come up every so often, and one day it may happen, especially with a Biden/Harris admin. What they don't seem to realize is we'll get hyper-inflation and that $1000 would be better used as toilet paper.

If it does happen it won’t be any different than the previous attempts. These socialist dream of free money and a carefree life without any effort. They always end up rooting through the trash for food and wiping their asses with a stick.

Advocates of socialism want to transfer the power of private wealth to the government. They complain that society is dominated by a handful of dominant corporations, yet their solution is one corporation, one that everyone must work for, one that has the power to arrest or kill you if you defy it.

But it's all good, 'cause we get to vote.

 

[georgephillip]

It’s almost as if you put no effort at all into this program other than your greed for money you didn’t earn.

It's almost as if you are gullible enough to believe billionaires earn their fortunes in a "free" market governed by an invisible hand's objective appraisal of their marginal utility instead the politically constructed laws and institutions that structure economic activity in their society.

Billionaires extract their fortunes by appropriating a greater share of the American commons than they are ethically entitled to.

A Big, Simple, Winning Issue for Biden

"OK, here’s the idea for President-elect Biden:

"Bring 20 of the Trumpiest-looking Alaskans to a press conference. Unveil a plan whereby every man, woman, and child gets a $1,000 check every month from the government.

"Finance it with taxes on large wealth, fossil fuels, financial transactions, and intellectual property resulting from taxpayer-funded public research.

"Invite the Alaskans to describe the joy of getting their checks: no middleman, no means tests, no government forms to fill out—just free money as everyone’s share of the American commons."

 

[danielpalos]

Think of the opportunity cost of taking an additional 4 trillion out of the economy.

Where are we taking the $4 trillion from?

Would you sacrifice 4 trillion dollars from Wall Street speculators, FIRE sector shareholders, and the Pentagon in order to gain an equal amount of consumption and investment?

Monopoly Capital - Wikipedia

"Fourth, military spending does not compete with capitalist interests in the same way as civilian spending and through imperialism serves to enhance those interests.

"Therefore, military spending is able to expand to a degree civilian spending is not, providing an important outlet for surplus absorption."

The problem is we have no general warfare clause in our federal Constitution and we should be promoting the general welfare not the general warfare every time it comes up.

And, I agree to disagree that military spending is better than infrastructure spending as a Government means of production.

 

[danielpalos]

Hard to believe there are people stupid enough to feel a free $1000/month would solve their financial problems or anyone's financial problems. They can't seem to see anything beyond their fricken nose.

They’re so fucking stupid they think they will get that check without effecting everyone else and the economy will stay the same. It’s exactly what every communist/ socialist country has thought before. Right up until it all crashes down and they didn’t get the riches for nothing they thought they would, look no further than Venezuela for how universal income has worked.

This topic seems to come up every so often, and one day it may happen, especially with a Biden/Harris admin. What they don't seem to realize is we'll get hyper-inflation and that $1000 would be better used as toilet paper.

If it does happen it won’t be any different than the previous attempts. These socialist dream of free money and a carefree life without any effort. They always end up rooting through the trash for food and wiping their asses with a stick.

Advocates of socialism want to transfer the power of private wealth to the government. They complain that society is dominated by a handful of dominant corporations, yet their solution is one corporation, one that everyone must work for, one that has the power to arrest or kill you if you defy it.

But it's all good, 'cause we get to vote.

We want to upgrade infrastructure as that form of investment and promotion of the general welfare in our economy.

 

[georgephillip]

Do the fly over states get to raise the prices of farm and ranch products to distribute among their citizens? Can we then not pay the city people because they had nothing to do with that?

There's no means testing involved in a UBI stipend.
It would flow to residents of states that extract more from the federal government than they pay in federal taxes as well as blue states.

 

[georgephillip]

Government will have much more power once everyone is working for the state.

What has government done for you lately?

https://governmentisgood.com/articles.php@aid=1

"Ask yourself this question: 'What has government done for me lately?' If you are like most Americans, you will probably answer: 'Not much.'

"Many people feel like they pay a lot in taxes but don't really get anything back from government.

"Surveys show that 52% of Americans believe that 'government programs have not really helped me and my family.'1

"But let’s see if that is really true.

"Let’s examine a typical day in the life of an average middle-class American and try to identify some of the ways that government improves that person’s life during that 24-hour period."

 

[Orangecat]

So what. Inflation happens regardless and supply side economics should reduce that inflationary upward pressure for goods.

By your failed logic, 100% inflation is the same as 3% inflation. You're too simple to hold an adult conversation.

 

[georgephillip]

No. Dems will go down in 2022. They already failed because of their fake witch hunts.

Never underestimate Trump.
If he's in prison before November 2022, will that increase Democratic turnout or not?

 

[hadit]

Equal protection of the law for unemployment compensation in our at-will employment States could be accomplished by executive order.

Automatic stabilization of our economy now!

How can we have unused productive capacity and mass unemployment at the same time?

What Is the Output Gap? - Back to Basics - Finance & Development, September 2013

"The output gap is an economic measure of the difference between the actual output of an economy and its potential output.

"Potential output is the maximum amount of goods and services an economy can turn out when it is most efficient—that is, at full capacity.

"Often, potential output is referred to as the production capacity of the economy."

We don't or should not have have a supply problem with supply side economics; we only have a demand problem, which solving for simple poverty can solve.

So that would be 1000 dollars times 12 time 350 million a year. That equals 4 trillion and 200 billion dollars a year. So all those tax increases that is proposed. What would the lower classes be on the hook for? That may destabilize the economy. The increases in prices of everything may be very high inflation to hyper inflation. I am not an economist though.

Inflation should not be a problem with supply side economics. That is why we need to increase the minimum wage so capitalists can automate for their bottom line.

Taxation is just not the Federal Wage Income Tax and the social Security/Medicare Tax. There are many taxes and many hidden ones. they add up. That is part of what make people who earn the minimum salaries tough. Those taxes and fees are embedded in everything we do. Its like a cycle that has to keep pushing the wage up as the taxes increase and the inflation rises. We do not even get the official amount of money in circulation anymore from the government as they are printing it up to keep the system solvent.

Higher paid labor creates more in demand and generates more in tax revenue. A positive multiplier applies.

So let's lay off everyone who earns less than $50/hr. That'll work wonders.

Your idea not mine; why don't You, take point on it?

I'm illustrating your absurdity by being absurd. You're enamored with paying everyone more so they pay more in taxes, I'm just pointing out that it comes at a price, something you won't acknowledge. And guess who would be hit the hardest by the lack of jobs when we double the MW overnight?

Young, unskilled, uneducated black men, that's who would be hit the hardest. Did you realize that you would be doing that?

Full employment is too difficult a concept for the right wing?

Do you really believe that making labor more expensive will result in more jobs being available? Because if you do, you're even loonier than I thought.

I am saying we need an institutional upward pressure on wages; unemployment compensation for simply being unemployed solves simple poverty and renders your only excuse, moot.

Let's see if we can translate: You want wages to just continually rise, which is inflation because you're not doing anything to increase the value of the jobs. Thus, inflation will eliminate any gains you would get from the increase and we would be right back where we started. You would then be back demanding $20/hr, then $30, then $50, and we would get nowhere. I'll ask you again, why not just set it to $100/hr and be done with it? You haven't attempted to answer that one, because if you do, it will become clear you can't do what you want without some negative impact.

You also think that giving people a guaranteed basic income will solve poverty. How will it do that when you have to first take the money out of the economy, making it harder for people to keep going and turning larger numbers of them from producers to takers? You refuse to consider the opportunity cost of taking over $3 trillion out of the economy.

 

[hadit]

Think of the opportunity cost of taking an additional 4 trillion out of the economy.

Where are we taking the $4 trillion from?

Would you sacrifice 4 trillion dollars from Wall Street speculators, FIRE sector shareholders, and the Pentagon in order to gain an equal amount of consumption and investment?

Monopoly Capital - Wikipedia

"Fourth, military spending does not compete with capitalist interests in the same way as civilian spending and through imperialism serves to enhance those interests.

"Therefore, military spending is able to expand to a degree civilian spending is not, providing an important outlet for surplus absorption."

The problem is we have no general warfare clause in our federal Constitution and we should be promoting the general welfare not the general warfare every time it comes up.

And, I agree to disagree that military spending is better than infrastructure spending as a Government means of production.

But we do have a Constitutional mandate for defense. You want to deny that one while taking to ridiculous extremes the welfare clause.

 

[hadit]

No. Dems will go down in 2022. They already failed because of their fake witch hunts.

Never underestimate Trump.
If he's in prison before November 2022, will that increase Democratic turnout or not?

Trump won't go to prison. That's assured. He may pay some fines here or there, but he's not going to prison.

 

[georgephillip]

So take your little Satanic 666 Commie policies and shove them up your mask.

We don't want your 666 Cashless Economy.

We are not going to help you pave the road for Global Rule and for your Dark Messiah, The AntiChrist.

You might be confusing the UBI with China's new digital currency.

https://www.pymnts.com/blockchain/2019/china-centarl-bank-completes-development-digital-currency/

The Federal Reserve, according to some reports, is considering incorporating a cybercurrency into any possible future UBI program in this country.

 

[danielpalos]

So what. Inflation happens regardless and supply side economics should reduce that inflationary upward pressure for goods.

By your failed logic, 100% inflation is the same as 3% inflation. You're too simple to hold an adult conversation.

No, just your fallacy of composition. Labor costs are specific. Goading capitalists to automate for their bottom line can ease inflationary pressure on those goods produced more cost effectively.