Why the world should adopt a basic income

It is a perfect Marxist lie to say that as automation, robotics AI, farm equipment, autos, trucks, airplanes, electricity, running water, plastic, screws, metal, etc etc displace human beings, that this will create a problem with humans having jobs given that its been happening for 2000 years and we still have 97% employment.

Isn't learning fun??

 

100% incredible how slow and liberal you are. when farm equipment replaced 99% of the workers on earth nobody knew what new jobs the unemployed would soon be doing because we cant predict the future. When the Wright brothers first flew we had no idea that 60 years later we'd have the 747's for all. Do you understand??1+1=2

 

It's already there. The use of sun-based energy is more than ample to supply the needs of most of both the northern and southern Americn hemispheres - if current means are applied. (Photovoltaic cells being the best option of energy supply ....)

 

liberals will never consolidate all anti poverty programs into one cash payment program. Do you understand?

 

if it was ample and cheaper we'd all be using it. As it is neither obviously!

 

That very much depends upon which area of the globe is in question;

As regards the US, the use of sunlight energy is no longer in question given the resent technological advances of solar-panel technology. Therefore electric motorized cars is no longer a question. They exist today and their potential will only increase in the future.

You are therefore quite wrong ...

What "infra"? Whatever the hell does THAT means ... ?

 

Do the math. Your assertion aside, the actual math doesn't come close to being able to support the grid consumption that adding hundreds of millions of cars would impact the grid with. Asserting that solar generators could is just demonstrating the fact that there doesn't exist today the means to support the original assertion. Likely this is also not going to be built out any time soon.

 

So liberals come out with the basic income guarantee and you celebrate it but don't think it's liberal after all? Wow

 

conservatives and libertarians would see basic income guarantee as an improvement if it was in place of all the other programs. Liberals though would see as an additional program to all the others. Is that simple enough for you?

 

You're talking guff as usual. The BIG was always a replacement system and integration of tax/benefit systems.

It's not radical enough for me, but its amusing how easily you celebrate liberal welfare policy.

 

From the magical money tree.

 

That's a question I've kept asking on the multiple threads on this topic, with no answer.

 

as I said in US it would be in place of for conservatives and in addition to for liberals.

 

celebrate? dumb?

 

Repeating nonsense won't help you. The liberal BIG was always to replace and ensure integration of tax/benefits.

 

They think they'll just garnishee rich folk. They are so flamingly dumb, that they don't realise that as soon as rich guy realises he's working for nothing, he'll stop working. They have zero appreciation of human nature, and don't possess the intellect or maturity to recognise that.

 

Let's see the "math" please.

You've got ancient "grids" in the US over a vast area. Replace them first.

In Europe, the grids are more compact. It's full-steam ahead to replace the nuclear production of energy. The governments presently subsidizes photovoltaic implementation on private properties because of they're inexpensive and easily installed.

That doesn't mean it can happen at 100%, but perhaps by half. And any measure to reduce eastern-Europe's dependency upon Russian gas is goodness ...[/QUOTE]

 

When the nukes start falling out of the sky, a global basic income will be the last thing you'll be concerning yourself about! lol

 

[/QUOTE]

I suppose this is the closest we'll see to you accepting that your original assertion was uber optimistic. Your response basically admits that, yes, there isn't sufficient power available for the transition that you dictated, and no, there isn't a plan for, or any impetus to actually get you there...

 

I think you are trying to intellectually analyze the motivations and theories of a policy that basically just boils down to "I want free stuff."

 

Sounds like a call to arms against intergenerational immobility.

 

Silly Socialist nonsense...all it would do is encourage anyone who can work little , or under the table, to never need to do more then the minimum to survive

 

Welfare policy is insufficient criteria for socialism. You'd need something like a radical change in form ownership.

Of course you're also wrong with labour supply analysis. That suggests work disincentive effects occur higher up the wage distribution, where income effects dominate substitution effects.

 

You know, Lil Mike, having been out in the far reaches of Leftopia for the entirety of my adult life, I can say without reservation ... that you are absolutely correct. They literally have NOTHING, beyond 'hugs and puppies'. It's like asking children to take over management of the household expenses - within 24 hours you'd be living on icecream, have all your friends over - all the time, and they'd each be driving a Hummer.

 

Basic income sounds like another communist ideal where you take money from the productive and give it to the unproductive.