(Part 2) Top products from r/basicincome

You're making the huge assumption that the rest of society has the same values you do, and the only thing stopping them from a revolution is oppression from above. This assumption is dead wrong.

I'll point out a little bit of the recent history of respect, dignity, power, control, FREEDOM in my country:

Jim Crow did not happen because of people's strong belief in respect, dignity and freedom. The Southern Strategy wasn't so successful because of people's strong belief in respect, dignity and freedom. The Tea Party hasn't been so successful because people are lazy and don't care about working conditions, or because of their strong belief in respect, dignity and freedom.

All these are successful because people, especially people who don't feel socio-economically secure, would rather defend their place in society over improving society for everyone, if that improvement means they just might stand to loose some benefits on an absolute scale. It's been the Republican party playbook for 50 years now: use people's fear that other people's success might mean they compete with you for social standing to stop any attempt to give basic human rights to all races and genders, strengthen the social safety net, unionize, etc.

The majority of people in the US have proven over and over again they will vote to lower themselves one notch down the totem pole if it will lower those below them two notches. BI will not fundamentally change that on day one.

I totally agree that people don't live their lives in numbers, but they do live their lives based on a number of competing desires and mental heuristics that differ from person to person, though with some useful demographic clustering. I highly recommend you read some moral psychology, like Haidt's The Righteous Mind so that you understand better the various desires and drives people have that get tied up in their politics. This book that spends a good amount of time dealing with the moral differences of egalitarian and hierarchical individuals and this free course on behavioral economics are also related and highly recommended.

People's values will change over time as they become less fearful, but if you think giving a Republican ~10-15k would instantly turn him into a Communist, I can only conclude you've never met a Republican. A "Taxation is Theft" march on Washington is orders of magnitude more likely than a General Strike.

Also, you seem to assume that the rich are a fundamentally different kind of person than we are. They aren't. We have the same tendencies as they do, and roughly the same mix of egalitarian and hierarchical value systems as they do.

TL;DR: The problem isn't just Them and their biases and desires keeping us down. The problem is Us and our biases and desires keeping each other down.

It's all good. Technology is getting us closer and closer to what spiritual teachings always said. We are one. And nowadays a day doesn't go by without some abuse exposed through a smartphone camera, or a leak of some sensitive information, or a whistle blower, etc.. Humanity is exposing all its ugliness for all to see, whether we want it or not.

Take Basic Income. An idea is spreading like wildfire today. It's really funny actually how we all pretend to be separate when you can see how information spreads today and how we end up all talking about the same things.

Hence, I'm not worried about echo chambers and any other dystopian scenarios. It makes for good headlines, but it simply is not possible.

In fact recently I read about this scientific theory of flow, the constructal law

> ‘for a finite-size flow system to persist in time (to live) it must evolve such that it provides greater and greater access to the currents that flow through it’

Design in Nature: How the Constructal Law Governs Evolution in Biology, Physics, Technology, and Social Organizations

https://www.amazon.com/Design-Nature-Constructal-Technology-Organizations/dp/0307744345

For this reason of optimized flow, rampant inequality is simply unsustainable =) What an optimally designed society looks like I don't know, and it might not mean UBI, though it seems likely.

"the future belong to societies (which are open to change) which liberate our flows" (...) "and also through rule of laws and governments which are free to change"

How a single principle of physics governs nature and society: Adrian Bejan at TEDxMidAtlantic 2012

1962: Milton Friedman calls for the implementation of a negative income tax.

1967: Martin Luther King calls for the introduction of a job guarantee or basic income.

1974: Manitoba implements a pilot program.

1976: Alaska Permanent Fund was established.

1983: Leonard Green publishes free enterprise without poverty.

1986: Basic Income Earth Network setup.

2001: John Tomlinson publishes income insecurity: the basic income alternative.

2006: Desmond Tutu calls for a basic income guarantee.

2008: Namibia implements a pilot program.

2009: Australia gives every citizen an unconditional cash transfer to stimulate the economy following the GFC.

2010: Guy Standing organises a pilot program in India.

2011: Germany Pirate Party calls for a basic income.

2013: Switzerland gains the necessary signatures to hold a referendum.

2014: Australia Pirate Party calls for a negative income tax.

2014: Scotland Green Party unveils its plan for a basic income guarantee.

2015: United Kingdom Green Party outlines its basic income plan.

>It's the closest experience I've got

The fact that you think that is close reveals the shallowness of your understanding.

>The certainty of comments in this thread are laughable.

I find your lack of intellectual curiosity laughable too. I guess we have different senses of humour.

Seriously though, your time would be better spent reading an international economics textbook than arguing with me.

It contains stuff I used to teach 19 year olds. If they got it, I see no reason why you cannot.

It might help you understanding economics issues better than the popular press articles that your diet seems to be centred around.

Goodbye, and have a nice day.

However, Im not convinced an infinity of free stuff is a good thing, and I dont think its necessary.

Recommended Reading- Enough:Breaking Free from the World of More by Patrick Naish

https://www.amazon.com/Enough-John-Naish-ebook/dp/034093591X/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1473992581&sr=8-1&keywords=enough+breaking+free+from+the+world+of+more

Nixon was primed to begin a form of basic income until a Ayn Rand loving libertarian dredged up a 100 year old flawed study. From the excellent Utopia for Realists

Why Richard Nixon once advocated for basic income — and then turned against it.

> But he hasn't explained why there is a liquidity trap.

He wrote an entire book on the subject, in the late 90s, a decade before the 2009 recession. He is quite aware of demographics, as you'll learn if you read his writings.

> I think it's psychology

OK, do you have any evidence of that? Care to elaborate? Your "explanation" so far can be best described as intellectually lazy: you ascribe everything to some amorphous, vaguely described, and untestable phenomenon that can never be understood or analyzed, and then switch off your brain with the satisfaction of a job well done. You might as well say "inflation is caused by God."

> Black's article is relevant because he is a founding father of finance

OK, so we are doing arguments from authority now? Just because someone is a well-known economist does not mean everything they write is applicable to every argument.

> But the financial economy dwarfs the "real" economy you are focusing on by an order of magnitude.

[citation needed].

> I want to quote Black again, because he is saying what I am saying and he is a VIP in economics so you can't just discount what he says as irrelevant or ignorant or confused

You can quote whoever you want. The problem is, the paper you are citing does not even support your argument, and in fact talks about something entirely different. You are just misunderstanding it. In particular, if the person you are quoting would have profoundly disagreed with your argument, that's a misquote. I think Black would turn over in his grave a few times if you tried to argue that printing money would not be inflationary.

Also, argument from authority is a logical fallacy. There are plenty of famous economists, and they tend to say mutually contradictory things. Fischer Black was a proponent of real business-cycle theory, which has basically been rejected by all but the most die-hard neocons at this point.

> Your problem, it would seem, is how you can prove prices are efficiently found by markets without the mathematical constraints on individual preference relations (preference relations must be transitive, which as you noted, is often violated in the real world)?

Why do I need to prove this assertion, and why do you assume I even think it's true? Mathematically speaking, it's not true. But economics isn't math, and we cannot prove things with the same level of rigor. Just because something is not strictly true does not mean it is entirely false.

> I produce things that are not valued by the economy.

If you don't participate in the economy, then you are not relevant to a metric that tries to measure the size of the economy. What's your point?

> GDP is a horrible measure and we should ignore it, move on from it, stop fetishizing it.

If you can come up with a better metric for the size of an economy, and convince other people of its value, you are free to do so. So far, you have not done that.

> Because the largest producer realizes that the Stone Age did not end due to a scarcity of stones.

Do you even understand what that phrase means?

The current trends in oil prices are explained perfectly by normal supply and demand theory. Supply has increased due to new technologies (fracking, oil sands development, etc). Demand is largely flat due to recessionary trends in Asia and Europe. Since countries like Saudi Arabia, Russia, and Venezuela depend almost entirely on hydrocarbon exports to drive their economies, they have not reduced production to compensate.

Read Dark Money. Billionaire “donations” are powerful tools.


https://www.amazon.com/Dark-Money-History-Billionaires-Radical/dp/0307947904

Yes and a bunch of people are doing it. It's called financial inpedendence and they're not all "rich." Many live very frugally to do it. Here are a few resources:


/r/financialindependence/


http://www.mrmoneymustache.com/


http://www.amazon.com/Your-Money-Life-Transforming-Relationship/dp/0143115766

If you want to go spend money on it, then that's your choice. Otherwise go do the research yourself.

I should. I am working on these things, and studying philosophy.

For more on this, read Russell Jacoby: https://www.amazon.com/End-Utopia-Politics-Culture-Apathy/dp/0465020011/ref=la_B001H6RZXQ_1_2?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1523847041&sr=1-2

https://www.amazon.com/Picture-Imperfect-Utopian-Thought-Anti-Utopian/dp/0231128940/ref=la_B001H6RZXQ_1_5?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1523847041&sr=1-5

There's also a new book out about it - Killers of the Flower Moon.

https://www.amazon.com/12-Rules-Life-Antidote-Chaos/dp/0345816021

I normally don't recommend this book to anyone... but I think it may be appropriate here.

I'm not going to address everything you say, since other people will.

However, I want to mention a couple things in response to this:

> I know of no situation in nature or in human history that mirrors or justifies this type of thing. Trying to say that people have a right to a minimum standard of living is entirely without precedent in any sense.

A few examples from USA and other present societies:

1. Active-duty military
   
   
2. Prisoners of war(!)
   
   
3. Prisoners in general
   
   
4. Children
   
   A few examples of similar or related institutions from the past or from other societies:
   
   
5. Ancient Sparta (citizens only, obviously)
   
   
6. Alaska Permanent Fund
   
   
7. Other sovereign wealth funds: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sovereign_wealth_fund
   
   
8. Social Security (also: Social Security Disability)
   
   
9. Pensions of various other sorts; especially http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_pension
   
   
10. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zakat
    
    Also, as far as what "justifies this type of thing," here is a book for you:
    
    http://www.amazon.com/The-Edges-Field-Obligations-Ownership/dp/0807004391
    
    

It was mentioned at the same time as Blitzed was a big thing here on reddit. But a quick google for isis and amphetamine brings lots of articles captagon.

A drug that is critiqued to be mild but I believe its mildness help confuse people with newfound but not inhuman courage through their fate.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/middle-east/turkey-seizes-11-million-captagon-amphetamine-pills-used-by-isis-fighters-to-keep-themselves-awake-a6744366.html
https://www.thesun.co.uk/living/3688057/captagon-isis-drug-chemical-courage-sleep-disorders-terrorists/

edit: But the world of amphetamine and other drug usage in war is greatly interesting, it almost makes war more believable (and horrifying) if you knew people we're freaking jacked and killer each others.