Ask Lemmy
A Fediverse community for open-ended, thought provoking questions
Rules: (interactive)
1) Be nice and; have fun
Doxxing, trolling, sealioning, racism, and toxicity are not welcomed in AskLemmy. Remember what your mother said: if you can't say something nice, don't say anything at all. In addition, the site-wide Lemmy.world terms of service also apply here. Please familiarize yourself with them
2) All posts must end with a '?'
This is sort of like Jeopardy. Please phrase all post titles in the form of a proper question ending with ?
3) No spam
Please do not flood the community with nonsense. Actual suspected spammers will be banned on site. No astroturfing.
4) NSFW is okay, within reason
Just remember to tag posts with either a content warning or a [NSFW] tag. Overtly sexual posts are not allowed, please direct them to either !asklemmyafterdark@lemmy.world or !asklemmynsfw@lemmynsfw.com.
NSFW comments should be restricted to posts tagged [NSFW].
5) This is not a support community.
It is not a place for 'how do I?', type questions.
If you have any questions regarding the site itself or would like to report a community, please direct them to Lemmy.world Support or email info@lemmy.world. For other questions check our partnered communities list, or use the search function.
6) No US Politics.
Please don't post about current US Politics. If you need to do this, try !politicaldiscussion@lemmy.world or !askusa@discuss.online
Reminder: The terms of service apply here too.
Partnered Communities:
Logo design credit goes to: tubbadu
view the rest of the comments
UBI. Not only is it viable but it works in improving everyone's lives, not just the people receiving it.
Sure, but have you considered that this would loosen the hold capitalism has on the wage slaves? Won't someone think of the shareholders‽
At best it would prop up capitalism until we can replace it with something better.
It's literally just giving people more money to shove into the capitalist system. You don't change a system by feeding it.
I won't say it's a bad thing... but it's not a solution. It's a stop gap.
UBI will be necessary when the combination of AI and robotics creates a permanent 35+% unemployment rate. We will have to institute UBI, or reduce the population by that much. Which objective will each party choose to support, and how will they accomplish it?
One leading party often seems willing to accept war as a means to ends they care about.
In a total lack of contrast, the other leading party seems roughly equally willing to accept war as a means to ends they care about.
The bigger question that bothers me is how much war exactly will they feel is needed for any population reduction they feel is necessary?
And will it be more war than the amount of war I would have otherwise participated in, in my lifetime?
War is a useful tool to reduce populations, but fairly inefficient until they start throwing bombs around. It can't be the only strategy.
Another good strategy is to restrict access to medical care. Make it incredibly expensive, so costly that many people will choose to die, rather then burden their families with the cost.
Another good one is to end childhood vaccines. A good pandemic can wipe out millions. Of course, this is only happening in America, so the wealthy will be able to afford vaccines from foreign countries, and survive any strategic pandemics. I wouldn't be surprised if Stephen "PeeWee Himmler" Miller released a deadly virus on purpose, something like Ebola, just to speed the process along.
Then there is Climate Change, which is wreaking havoc on our environment, and causing far worst storms and floods. Restrict or even end FEMA, and our annual natural disasters can claim victims with much more efficiency.
Criminalize EVERYTHING, and throw more people in prison, where the mortality rate is much higher. Allow the military/ law enforcement to fire on protesters. Allow police to kill without consequences.
Prohibit Birthright Citizenship, allowing the deportation of millions of American citizens. Don Jr, Ivanka, and Eric are all Birthright Citizens, so they should be deported as well, but we all know that Aristocrats won't be included.
And if doing all this, and more, doesn't reduce the population fast enough, we can always go down the proven path of Death Camps.
It's probably a necessary step towards dismantling the monetary system entirely, though.
In the Star Trek future, they couldn't accomplish that until they perfected Replicator technology.
There were no replicators in TOS
TOS was just the dress rehearsal for the real Star Trek universe.
Is there a specific mention of that, or just something people assume? I googled a single reddit thread, which clearly makes me an expert (/s), and it seemed as though money was really just kind of a fuzzy concept up until they declared they didn't use money sometime around Star Trek 4.
I do remember them specifically saying that their economic system was completely changed by Replicator technology, although I don't remember who said it, or in what context. I don't even remember which show. I'm pretty sure I heard it correctly, because I remember it being a massive revelation to me. That was the single event that completely shifted all humanity away from a capitalist society.
Exactly, what are those useless sociopaths supposed to be doing now? Actual labor? Come on....!
UBI would be amazing for the economy. It's basically Trickle UP economics. The money will still eventually end up in the pocket of some rich guy, but at least it will grease the gears of the economy on the way up.
Citation needed
Challenge accepted, but I'm not going to cite some media story. Instead, I'll use a real-life example that we ALL lived through:
During the Covid quarantine, Americans were issued checks to help offset financial issues caused by not working, essentially UBI. While everyone thought the quarantine would cause an economic slump, the government-issued checks had the opposite effect - the economy boomed.
When all those Americans got extra money, they didn't do what wealthy people do, and hoard it, they spent it. They caught up on bills, they bought new vehicles, appliances, furniture, etc. All that government money poured into the economy, and it boomed. Delivery services like Uber Eats and Door Dash finally got their feet under them, and became viable businesses for the first time. Huge online retailers like Amazon, Walmart, Best Buy, etc. all reported record sales, and record profits, and record stock prices.
It was thought that if everyone stayed home from work, the economy would crash, but as long as they had money to spend, the economy actually increased significantly. Economically, it was the best part of Trump's first term.
That wasn't a theory, or a study, or even a small test case in a city or even a state. That was a nationwide experiment, using multiple payments over a fairly long time period, and it proved that giving money to the lower economic strata produces huge economic gains, far more than giving tax incentives to the wealthy.
And it didn't hurt the wealthy at all. They still got even richer, but everyone else got to benefit too. Trickle UP Economics works, and the only reason not to do it is if the Ruling Class simply doesn't want us to have it, for their own selfish reasons, which is primarily because it is easier to maintain control of poor people who rely on you for what little money they are allowed to have.
If the Sociopathic Oligarchs and Corporations won't come to their senses, and cooperate with a new economic paradigm that works for all citizens, then sooner or later we will spontaneously switch to Robin Hood Economics, and that usually comes accompanied with things like guillotines, nooses, and firing squads. They won't like that at all. It will be far better for them if we shift to Trickle UP Economics before we get to that point.
Why not just distribute the resources themselves, rather than tokens to exchange for resources? If we have post scarcity, we won't need money
Because distributing resources equally is a bad idea since people are individuals. You're giving 1 chicken to the guy that loves chicken and the same amount to the vegetarian. If instead you give h both the money for 1 chicken they can decide whether they want the chicken or something else.
Yes, but if you do it in the form of currency without changing the system in which the currency is used, it's just feeding that system. Are capitalists suddenly going to be less greedy, and more likely to care about their compatriots instead of eager to exploit them because we give them more power and more money?
No. They won't. They'll just find better ways to exploit this sudden surge of basically free money.
Sure, other stuff needs to change as well, but using currency for an UBI is the easiest and fastest way to implement it.
I mean... yeah... that's what UBI is.
I was criticizing UBI as a concept, not how it's implemented.
I find it funny who ubi proponents say we need UBI because capitalism failed to have wages match cost of living and simultaneously say UBI will fix it with capitalism.
Housing is expensive because there isn't enough. If capitalism could fix it, then housing would have at a minimum matched inflation and should have decreased in price because of technology improvements. So giving people more money absolutely cannot fix the housing crisis. UBI would be a handout for landlords.
When demand is the problem in a supply/demand economy, you can't fix it with more demand (cash).
Along with UBI, there also needs to be UBH, and other basic needs.
Capitalism means that they stop building before the price dips below wildly profitable, because capital is risk adverse. Capitalism won't, not can't, fix these problems.
A large institution may be risk averse. But a smaller firm trying to gain ground in the market would likely be more than happy to take on the risk and slimmer margins. After all, if capitalism wasn't okay with slim margins, then restaurants and grocery stores wouldn't exist.
Yes, and then that smaller firm fails because they take too many risks that have little chance of success. They end up being bought up by the larger firms, and all their assets put towards those higher value investments.
Sure, that could happen. But at that point, the smaller firm has already done its risky work so the people can benefit from it. And another small firm will step into the market to fill that niche.
New construction works on too long a time frame for this. It's not liquid enough, and the level of capital you need to engage in the process is not trivial.
Given that capitalism is a system, not an individual with intention, "won't" is the wrong word.
Capitalism fails to meet housing demand because it is constrained by regulations about things like single family zoning, setbacks, parking minimums, or minimum floor areas; and because the perverse incentives of current taxation schemes regarding the inelastic supply of land don't incentivize land owners to put their land to its highest and best use.
Housing is a bad example of capitalism failing because the problems developers face are extremely well known and understood. Remove the frivolous regulations, adopt a georgist tax policy, and build good public infrastructure, and you'll get far more housing than you currently have far faster than you are currently building it. Could government do better? Maybe... but I have yet to see that evidence.
That's not true because when given an opportunity to build housing, developers always choose to build higher margin premium housing. Capitalism incentivizes profit and there's no profit in cheap housing.
There is plenty of profit to be made in cheap housing, just like there is plenty of profit to be made in cheap food. You can go to the grocery store right now and buy a tomato for not very much money, and the store that sold it, and trucker who transported it, and the farmer that grew it will all make money - despite food's famously slim margins.
The situation with housing is more like this: the government has dictated that only 5 acres of land in the country can be used to grow tomatos. And each tomato plant can only grow a maximum of 10 tomatos. If you are a tomato farmer, what do you do? Well, since you can't grow as many tomatos as you want, you start looking for ways to increase your margin on each tomato you sell - selling the most appealing, perfect, organic tomatos you can.
So it is with housing. When the government finally approves the development of some denser housing in a desireable part of town, the developer wants to build the highest margin housing that they can, since they won't be able to build 50 more apartment buildings. So they build luxury apartments. However, if the government said "you can build as much and as densly as you like on any plot of land here", then developers would probably start with more luxury housing, but would likely run out of luxury renters quite quickly. But then they would simply seek out more profit with the slimmer margins available in affordable housing development.
That happens unconditionally under capitalism, there's no set profit margin where the owner says "I've made enough money, time to lower prices and raise wages".
Competition only exists within a very narrow context within capitalism. If you want the capitalists to do x y z, you don't deregulate, you simply restrict them from doing anything else and prepare to use every means the government has at their disposal to punish the ones who violate the public trust.
There's a reason China manages to operate a healthier capitalist system within a very clearly defined bird cage.
Wrt your China example, I will default to my null hypothesis here - China is on the upswing from opening itself to global trade, and has 1 billion people. Any argument in favor of China's prosperity must demonstrate that they are doing well beyond what we would expect in these circumstances.
And sure. But eventually someone will start trying to undercut others by accepting lower margins.
And of course, this is why we should have and enforce laws against price fixing and collusion.
None of this changes the fact that, even if governments took on the construction of new housing themselves and dedicated themselves to solving the housing shortage, they also wouldn't be able to build enough new housing fast enough because of their own regulations on how housing must be constructed.
You don't need need to explicitly collude (though many compabies do) for companies to realize if they lower prices or invest in better technology, so will other companies, and then they'll all be worse off. We observe this in any mature industry under capitalism.
Food is subsidized and highly regulated by the government.
You can go to the hardware store and buy a screwdriver. Or go to walmart and buy a frying pan. Etc.
Unlike food and housing, a screwdriver isn't required to live. That's why food is subsidized and regulated. Whereas non essentials are allowed to compete in a free market.
Food is subsidized because of farm lobbying, which is why there are far more subsidies for the corn that goes into Doritos than there are for spinach and blueberries.
Food is regulated because it can create public health crises. Afaik, most food prices are not regulated beyond anti-gouging and anti price fixing laws, which also apply to screwdrivers.
Food, and screwdrivers, are cheap because they are commodities in a competitive market. Any given tomato or screwdriver is more or less like the next, and customers can always go from Home Depot or Kroger to Lowes or Walmart across the street.
Regardless, you are failing to engage with my actual point, which is that unnecessary restrictions on the production of goods will drive manufacturers to produce only the most high-margin options, which is why developers never seem to build affordable housing.
Now, I'm not unsympathetic to your argument - maybe it really is impossible for profit-seeking entities to build affordable housing under ideal conditions (though then you need to explain how we built affordable housing in the past...). But my argument is: there are some very obvious regulatory and tax reasons for why housing is in such short supply, and these hurdles would need to be overcome by anyone building housing - public or private. So, we should remove these barriers first and see what happens.
Yet you gave the example of food being cheap which has regulations. It's cheap because it is subsidized. Farmers aren't the only industry with lobbiests.
We killed the existing land owners so there was a surplus of land.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Housing_Act_of_1949 (required cheap housing to be built to replace any cheap housing torn down.)
The only barrier is the people who vote. If a community votes against a developer, that's their constitutional right. Which is why I said the supply is the problem. Giving more money to renters does not change the supply. If more housing was built, the price would go down and ubi wouldn't be needed.
You don't need currency for that. You just need a request system. And ideally some form of moral rejection mechanism that refuses to distribute sentient beings as resources. I didn't say it had to be distributed equally just because there's no money.
Chicken and vegetarian was just an example, also the chicken was implicitly dead in my example so it was no longer sentient, also also there might be non moral reasons, which paint color do we give people for their walls? How often? Etc etc etc.
In the request system you propose there needs to be some sort of pointing or valuation, requesting a car should not be equivalent to requesting an apple. Whatever form of valuation you use for that, there's your currency. Not to mention that for the requesting system to be able to work the government would need to own all products so it can redistribute them according to requests, and what would it do if 100 people requested something that only 50 were made? It's a nice idea but it becomes very complicated very fast, whereas using currency takes away all of that complication and gives you something tangible that could be implemented tomorrow instead of in 20 years being very generous.
Just because something is easier to implement doesn't mean it will work better.
Honestly, that's the biggest hurdle our current economic systems are facing. People go for the easy option that seems like it should work instead of the longer term plan that has more flexibility and chance for success.
The problem with your suggestion is that it still hinges on the capitalist system to provide for people. And thus is far easier to exploit.
Yeah sure, but you have got to be realistic, you're talking about a 20/50 year plan even if you get everyone to agree with it. Yes, Capitalism is bad, yes there are problems with UBI, but the thing you're proposing is impossible, whereas UBI is something that could be implemented tomorrow, and would set a good foundation to move things in the right direction. Don't let perfection be the enemy of good.
Oh, is that all
There's a few reasons. Firstly greed is a motivator, and people work hard if they believe they'll receive more for more effort. This gets people to go out and generate the resources that need to be distributed. Second, fungible tokens allow people to trade on the open market instead of having to find a particular person who is willing to trade say, a worm gear for a bale or two of cotton. The token is the middle man that allows someone trying to sell something sell to someone who doesn't have what the seller plans to finally trade for. That's why money started to exist in the first place.
Even in a communist system, there needs to be a way to transfer the results of labor into the things a person needs. Money is that way. Even if it means everyone gets the same amount of money to buy what they need. Everyone's resource needs are different. You can't just say everyone gets the exact same everything.
Finally, we're not post-scarcity. Not really. Until resource manufacture is so automated that it doesn't require people to do labor to acquire it, we either pay people to do the labor or we force them to via slavery. For that reason alone, we need money.
As I said to the other person, there can be a donation and request system to make sure everyone gets what they need, without tying money into it and having this weird limit of the amount of stuff people can get, and tying the idea of value to it all.
What if you make a request and no one wants to donate what you need? Would you not then want a way to incentivize someone to make the donation, or incentivize someone else to make more of what you need?