656
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 02 Sep 2025
656 points (100.0% liked)
News
32413 readers
3538 users here now
Welcome to the News community!
Rules:
1. Be civil
Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban. Do not respond to rule-breaking content; report it and move on.
2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.
Obvious right or left wing sources will be removed at the mods discretion. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted seperately but not to the post body.
3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.
Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.
4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source.
Posts which titles don’t match the source won’t be removed, but the autoMod will notify you, and if your title misrepresents the original article, the post will be deleted. If the site changed their headline, the bot might still contact you, just ignore it, we won’t delete your post.
5. Only recent news is allowed.
Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.
6. All posts must be news articles.
No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials or celebrity gossip is allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis.
7. No duplicate posts.
If a source you used was already posted by someone else, the autoMod will leave a message. Please remove your post if the autoMod is correct. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.
8. Misinformation is prohibited.
Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.
9. No link shorteners.
The auto mod will contact you if a link shortener is detected, please delete your post if they are right.
10. Don't copy entire article in your post body
For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
Porque no las dos
I mean you could, but what would be the point if housing, healthcare, and food security were a right? UBI is just a bandage some billionaires advocate for just so they don't have to pay for a working healthcare system
Did you mean to say if they weren't a right?
I meant if housing, healthcare, and food were guaranteed, what would be the point of UBI?
Politicians currently advocating for UBI are doing so as a replacement for things like universal healthcare, not in conjunction with it.
So that goes back to my original comment, porque no las dos?
And that would go back to my response.... What would be the point?
A basic income is supposed to cover basic necessities, if those are already covered what is the point other than driving inflation and driving down productivity?
It's amazing to me how some people fight so hard against something that would benefit them. Like, if I offered to send you $500 a month no strings attached, would you really be against it?
They have done a lot of studies and test runs with UBIs, they seem to work pretty well and most people use them to pay off debts, save up some, educate themselves and still work. Iirc employment actually went up and people were more productive because they didn't have to worry as much. (Not that productivity should like, be a goal that magically makes something valid to exist and if it isn't should be scrapped) You've probably seen a bunch of stuff online about it so I doubt I'd convince you of anything at this point.
As for inflation, looks like people can price gouge their way to hyper inflation just fine without a ubi, so yeah, not sure why you'd be against a check every month.
Because there are always strings attached..... Just because you don't know enough about macroeconomics to foresee any potential negative outcomes doesn't mean there won't be any.
And these studies are operating in our current economy, not one where basic needs have already been met. In the theoretical scenario where the government is insuring basic needs like housing, food, medical, and education are already being paid for, adding an additional UBI would just be an additional revenue burden.
If we're already raising taxes enough to guarantee the populations basic needs are taken care of, UBI would be that much harder to secure funding for.
Again, this would already be a problem addressed by the just securing people's basic needs.
Yeah......you want to extrapolate that thought just a little more? Price gouging is only possible if people have the money to still pay for the items.
One of the reasons why prices shot up during/after the pandemic is because of the covid checks. Don't get me wrong, for the amount of people who were temporarily out of work we needed to increase the money supply. However, a natural response to an increase of money supply without an increase of production is inflation/price gouging. The demand isn't being met by supply, this increases the price of the current supply to what the market is willing to pay. When you increase theoney supply, it increases what the market is willing to pay.
You can't just increase the money supply from thin air for nothing in return. Macroeconomics is a careful balance between spending, revenue, and productivity.
Whatever man if you care more about macroeconomics than actually helping people that's a pretty sociopathic take. We could easily pay for a ubi with tax reform and it is one of those things that generates more money than we put into it, but what do I know, I'm someone you assume is an idiot.
If you think you can help people at a national scale without macroeconomics then you are a moron.
Again, under the original premise tax reform would already be occurring to pay for people's basic needs....you know, the thing that UBI is supposed to partially cover.
In our current economy.....not in one where people's basic needs are already being met.
The theory of UBI generating more money than it cost relies on the fact that covering some people's basic needs increases their productivity. In the economic theory we were talking about their needs would already be fully covered. Meaning there wouldn't be an increase in productivity, meaning UBI would not generate more money than it cost.
In all fairness, what you are claiming is pretty idiotic.
Even in communist countries where people's most basic needs are fully covered by the government, they don't the receiver free checks from the government, in fact in most of them it's illegal to be unemployed for long periods. Arguably productivity is even more important in planned and centralized economies, and a UBI with a socialized system would just motivate people not to work.
That's pretty fucking stupid since people worked on stuff outside of subsistence farming well before money existed. You're so wrapped up in how things are and how you think things should work you're not seeing anything potential. In your bleak worldview humanity must enslave itself. Maybe if you had a perspective that was more focused on the happiness and well-being of humans you could use that oh-so-massive big brain of yours to figure out a way for people to have their needs met and have a functioning society, but your motivations are clearly set in a different direction.
Economics existed before capitalism....... Macroeconomics does not solely consist of the evaluation of currency. You can do a modern economic evaluation of subsistence farming communities, or a historical macroeconomic evaluation of previous societies.
Macroeconomics studies large scale forces of the economy, like a population's effect on productivity, labor policy, government type, taxation, or even how weather will affect food growth.
Lol, even in economies where people equally own the means of production, individual people still have to be productive......
You are just a lazy ass who wants to receive the benefits of a socially and economically equitable society without labouring for it.
I started this conversation by arguing we should have a system that already insured our needs were met..... You just want your needs met and then extra money so you can be a lazy ass and not contribute anything to society.
UBI is a scam that billionaires put forward because they know cutting a check for 500 bucks every month is a hell of a lot cheaper alternative than providing food, education, housing, and healthcare.
Maybe learn a iota about the economy before you start gargling Andrew Yang's ballsack.....
Like I said before, amazing how people will argue against their better interests. Really bold of you to assume I'm just lazy, too.
It's really funny that you got this bent out of shape when someone just asks "why not both"
Ah well can't help everyone, especially when they won't bother trying, right?
Lol, arguing something will not work because it disregards very simple economic principles is not "arguing against my own interests".
I mean, you're obviously too lazy to apply yourself to learn basic concepts....so yeah, lazy asshole.
My dude, dunking on lazy idiots online is fun......
The irony...... Coming from the idiot who thinks we could provide housing, medical care, education, food and give everyone $500 a month by just by changing taxes.....
Considering how the government spends money on so much other shit, it would cost a pittance in comparison, and generate more flow in the economy.
I'm not last, I'm just gonna take advice from someone who probably stabs homeless people.
Again.... You have no idea what you are talking about, and have no clue how much healthcare cost.
The federal government's largest expense is social security (22%), Medicare (14%), and Medicaid(10%). That's nearly half of the entire federal budget to cover some of the cost of living and healthcare for a minority of the country.
Granted our system is wasteful and inefficient, but not to the point where we wouldn't have to vastly increase revenue to cover the entire populations healthcare, food, housing and education. We would have to reshape the entire economy to do so, and I think there is a moral imperative to do so. However, once that is accomplished, I do not see a reason to implement UBI, a plan that would just further increase the need for revenue that's already being spent for better purposes.
I already explained why UBI would not stimulate the economy under a the economic conditions we were discussing. There's a reason no communist country has implemented a UBI. You are just too dense to actually understand anything we're talking about. You don't even understand the reason UBI is a scam in our current economic system let alone a hypothetical one.
Lol, I advocate for universal housing, education, nutrition, and healthcare..... But because you don't understand basic economics, it means I want to murder homeless people?
Also I imagine you meant to say "I'm not lazy, I'm just not gonna take advice....?
It's almost like you're too lazy to even read your own responses........
Ah, I see where the problem lies.
You were so wrapped up in the current situation that your very limited imagination couldn't comprehend changing it, and you're myopically focused on the world as it is instead of what it could be. I can understand someone who isn't very creative having a hard time thinking outside of what's put in front of them, so I'm sorry I was trying to introduce a hypothetical that was so over your head that you clearly got frustrated with the situation.
You were clearly thinking from a "how could we work this ass things are" situation because of your mental limitations, and I was casually thinking of hypotheticals and being goal first oriented, thinking of the optional situation and willing to work backwards.
So yes, of course my cavalier suggestion wouldn't work in the economic system we have now, and since you're not really able to look outside of that, you, like a frustrated child, see it as an impossibility and lashed out.
I think it would certainly be a noble goal and something to work towards, humanity having it's basic needs met with a small stipend on top of that, and what a pity there's people who would fight tooth and nail against such an idealized situation.
I suppose you're very much wrapped up in the puritanical thought of life without work is sinful and should be avoided, especially with your repeated accusations of laziness directed at me, so such a future would be a nightmare for you. I only assume you never plan on retirement and view retired people with contempt for their lack of toil. It's why I assume you wish to stab homeless people, for their sloth. You say you're for nationalized education, housing, good and healthcare but honestly I don't think your heart is in it if one of your big arguments against ubi is the same one being used against all those things, the horrible idea that some people might not work when they could.
Ah well, have fun working towards humanity having to do perpetual labor forever, I'm sure that's a great idea. Wouldn't want too many idle hands and all.
Do you have reading comprehension issues? We are already imagining a world where all basic needs are being subsidized by the government...... Which is not the curt status quo the last time I checked.
We were already talking about the likelihood of a hypothetical when you further proposed ubi on top of it.
Again...... We were already talking about a hypothetical That is different from the current status quo. Just because I don't think UBI is compatible with that hypothetical doesn't mean anything but your inability to understand economics.
Again....can you not retain what you read? We were already talking about an economic system that is not our current system. UBI is only compatible with our current system, because it's a ploy from billionaires to stop paying for things like social security and Medicare.
For what reason.....? You haven't validated your reasoning other than falsely claiming that it drives the economy. Which I already explained why it would not happen in this hypothetical economic scenario.
I honestly don't care if you wanted to work or not in this scenario, you aren't going to starve, you will have the right to higher education, and will have a roof over your head. What I don't want is for the system to further incentive people like you to do nothing but goon all day and take from the system without ever giving anything back to society.
If that is possible the system will not be productive enough to provide for everyone. Socialism just doesn't mean you can be a lazy ass and get a free check, quite the opposite. It means we're all responsible for providing enough to insure the people who lack the ability to contribute don't go without.
Lol, I plan on retiring early and am on track to do so..... We don't currently live in a socialized economy, so I really do not care if you aren't being productive, it's no skin off my back. Though I would advocate that you still deserve food, healthcare, and a roof over your head.
Again, you really need to take a course at the community college or something for reading. In our current economy, I wouldn't mind UBI so long as it wasn't a veiled attempt to lower social security or Medicare funding. However, in the hypothetical scenario new were talking about, UBI would be unnecessary and would likely increase the funding requirements while simultaneously lowering productivity....which is why no socialist government has done any sort of UBI in the past.
This is the reason I call you out for being a lazy fuck. Because that seems to be the only thing you really care about. You seem to be in hysterics over the thought that you might have to be a productive member of a socialized society, even though it would mean having universal housing, education, food security, and healthcare. Again providing for all society is not free, I'm sorry to burst your little imagination land bubble. Please learn to read, it might help some of these ideas seep through your thick lazy skull.
Heh, figured you wouldn't get it. Funny you rant about reading comprehension but can't really comprehend what's being put in front of you. Love the assumptions, too. For someone who doesn't like laziness you really do not make the effort to think much, and for someone who claims to care about people you really are dismissive and unemphatic. It's kinda sad to see someone who's head is up their ass thinking they have clear vision.
That's fine though, you work towards that society you want and eventually you'll catch up to me and we can work towards mine. You're only a stepping stone after all.
Heh, figured you couldn't even begin to explain your assertions. All you have done is reassert a claim that's already been disputed without responding to the dispute itself. It's obvious you are just avoiding engaging in any kind of dialogue because you don't know enough about the topic to respond.
A functional sustainable society that provides all basic needs for every citizen? How awful of me....
Again, an obvious attempt of constructing a strawman argument that portrays me as advocating for the current status quo.
Again..... Where is the production that allows for funding for UBI coming from in this scenario? If basic needs are already met, and providing for some of those basic needs is how UBI traditionally claims to improve production...... How does UBI "pay for itself"?
You've mistaken my disinterest for ignorance.
So let me ask you this: if there was a society that every person's needs are met, they didn't have to work if they didn't want to, and everyone there was pretty happy and educated and fulfilled, would you want to live there? No sneaky sci-fi bullshit where it's the matrix or aliens or whatever, it's genuinely a society like that on a global scale.
Yes or no please.
Just because we are arguing about the validity of a hypothetical scenario, does not mean you can introduce the fantastical to aid your argument. Socialism is achievable in the foreseeable future, post scarcity dream world where productivity doesn't matter does not.
Are you incapable of making a rebuttal without the use of a logical fallacy? Why would I agree to debate within the framework of a false dicotomy?
You are dreaming of a post scarcity society when in reality we are entering an era that is going to be dictated by climate change, mass migration, and dwindling natural resources. Of course everyone would love to live in a post scarcity society..... but that's not a possibility in the foreseeable future outside of alien intervention nor some sci-fi scenario.
Ah, so not only do you resort to childish insults but you're incapable to actually answer a simple yes or no question. I wonder why you're afraid to answer, but that's your business.
Since you obviously don't respect me, as evident from the above points, I don't really see a point in trying to defend my position. You wouldn't listen to anything I had to say, any facts or studies you'd dismiss as a scam, and you won't even bother trying to get to understand my position enough to argue against it.
You've already decided that, because I had even a slightly different position than you, not even against you just different, that you're smarter, more hard working, and better than me and therefore I deserve, earned even, insults and dismissal.
So this long since hasn't been an argument in good faith.
Which is really disappointing, I would've actually enjoyed having a discussion on the validity of a ubi in a socialist society with someone, but that someone clearly wasn't going to be you, and never was going to be.
The worst part I feel is how much damage you're doing to the position of universal healthcare, housing, education and food, by being so venomous. Do your position and your movement a favor and please, don't engage with people about the subject. You're doing the same the the WBC does for Christianity, and giving everyone on our side a bad name.
Accurately accusing you of using logical fallacies = childish insults? Maybe try not using a logical fallacy as a rebuttal for once?
Because I disagree with the inherent premise of the question, and the reasoning that answering it would bring any substance to the dispute.
Lol, convenient timing...... You obviously don't respect me either, I just don't try to virtue signal my way out of an argument.
You haven't given any facts or studies, or even logical explanations that support your opinion. You have just made the same easily disputed claims over and over again without addressing my rebuttals to them.
And now we're pityfishing.... You know, this might have an iota of weight behind it if you didn't accuse me of wanting to murder homeless people because I have a slightly different position than yours.
I have been asking you to justify your position on this the whole time....
Trying to explain basic economic realities to a moron.....so venomous!
You know I didn't actually start insulting you until you accused me of being an asshole for trying to explain the flaws in your claim.
I don't think for a second you actually care about anyone but yourself. No one who seriously wants to enact socialism cares about UBI. It is literally a ploy billionaires have been lobbying for about a decade.
K