Making the news today....

[kevinjohnsonmbe]

Can't remember if it was on this thread - amongst the ideological, theological, pathological, psychotic, political, social, economic, moral, environmental and just plain mental rantings of the massive..... 

 

Universal Basic Income....?  Hadn't heard of it before it was mentioned on here then a day or 2 after, it was on the news about the RSA having presented some study findings and here they are:

 

https://www.thersa.org/action-and-research/rsa-projects/economy-enterprise-manufacturing-folder/basic-income

 

An interesting prospect....

 

[Mark J]

2 hours ago, kevinjohnsonmbe said:

Can't remember if it was on this thread - amongst the ideological, theological, pathological, psychotic, political, social, economic, moral, environmental and just plain mental rantings of the massive..... 

 

Universal Basic Income....?  Hadn't heard of it before it was mentioned on here then a day or 2 after, it was on the news about the RSA having presented some study findings and here they are:

 

https://www.thersa.org/action-and-research/rsa-projects/economy-enterprise-manufacturing-folder/basic-income

 

An interesting prospect....

 

Have a watch of this: 

 

 

 

Edited February 18, 2018 by Mark J

[Mesterh]

On 16/02/2018 at 10:07, Haironyourchest said:

The problem we have in the west is moral poverty, not monetary. Compared to our peasant ancestors even the poorest live like royalty today. Its a lack of moral fiber, backbone, horse sense, willpower, smarts, whatever you wanna call it. The deficit comes from poor parenting by parents who themselves were poorly parented and so on, since the industrial revolution. Also environmental pressure and TV. The youth being caged indoors and in school when they should be working the fields or forest from the age of seven. Combine that with a modern liberal snowflake policy that refuses to punish anyone....

Unfortunately you are very, very wrong. There is plenty of monetary poverty. You do realise that patents can become ill, can't do the job they used to and die, sometimes both of them? Ok, they may be better off than say someone in the same circumstances back in the year dot but they certainly don't live like royalty. Having barely enough food to stay healthy and some clothes isn't a good way to live, not this day and age. There are lots of people living like that not just a few Yorkshire men living in a matchbox.

 

It was only when i grew up that I realised how poor some of my childhood friends were and how lucky I was to have two working parents.

 

 

[kevinjohnsonmbe]

1 hour ago, Mark J said:

Have a watch of this: 

 

 

 

Very ‘watchable’ Mark, I hold his views in very high regard. Must get on and read the book that was a Christmas present. 

 

Bankruptocracy....  liked that!

 

The single issue that stands to completely derail the theory of universal income, and without wanting to silo the conversation, whilst simultaneously wondering if his Left of centre position is the reason he COMLETELY avoided what was, to me, the hairy mamouth in the phone box, is immigration control.  He’s too smart to have ‘overlooked’ the issue which kind of devalues his output, so far as I’m concerned, and like I say, I am a genuine fan. 

 

For example, Country A has universal income, country B is a retarded economy with corrupt government and abject poverty....  Hows that gonna play out? 

 

Like he said, got to overcome preconceived ideas and not leave anything off the table, but then, by omission, he contradicts himself!

 

 

[difflock]

The best way of understanding the difficulty of providing generous State healthcare and benefits is illustrated by imagining 2 states sharing a land border with no restriction of movement.

Both states have the same natural resources and population size and density,

but, over time, for marginal reasons,

State "A" becomes more conservatively  run, with a lean administeration, moderate taxes and a not overgenerous health and social security system.

State "B", for whatever political causation, decides to pay more generous benefits, which inevitabily results in higher taxes.

Nett result;

the workers move to State "A" , which gets wealthier, lowers taxes, and becomes even more attractive for workers.

Whereas State "B" attracts the work-shy benefit seekers, loses tax revenue, and goes down the shitter, just  like Detroit.

Can anyone argue with the logic of this argument.

Such is the human condition.

And surely relative poverty is the  great driver, to seek a better life, through earned income, but not if Social Security chucks out more money in benefits, than can be earned locally.

Harsh, but many stable societies/communities exist on funds earned by the  breadwinners working away from home, or certainly the younger men working away from home.

I cannot see this changing in any healthy economic system, since any attempt at state control  must always results in bloated administeration and inefficiency.

regards

mth

 

Edited February 19, 2018 by difflock

[ABtrees]

OK I know its going back a few days but thought you guys might enjoy this clip (from the BBC !) - not sure this is the right thread but it seemed to include a bit of the Africa, Christianity, BBC and head for heights threads/debates all in one !  I enjoyed watching it anyway ! 

 

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/av/world-africa-43079345/ethiopian-cliff-church-gives-priest-daily-test-of-faith

[Mark J]

19 hours ago, kevinjohnsonmbe said:

Very ‘watchable’ Mark, I hold his views in very high regard. Must get on and read the book that was a Christmas present. 

 

Bankruptocracy....  liked that!

 

The single issue that stands to completely derail the theory of universal income, and without wanting to silo the conversation, whilst simultaneously wondering if his Left of centre position is the reason he COMLETELY avoided what was, to me, the hairy mamouth in the phone box, is immigration control.  He’s too smart to have ‘overlooked’ the issue which kind of devalues his output, so far as I’m concerned, and like I say, I am a genuine fan. 

 

For example, Country A has universal income, country B is a retarded economy with corrupt government and abject poverty....  Hows that gonna play out? 

 

Like he said, got to overcome preconceived ideas and not leave anything off the table, but then, by omission, he contradicts himself!

 

 

If you can be bothered, there's a wealth of information on his thoughts, regarding immigration and finance online.  He may even cover it in that book you have.  I think the main point to take is that 'Universal' means exactly that.  I may be mistaken though.

[kevinjohnsonmbe]

2 minutes ago, Mark J said:

If you can be bothered, there's a wealth of information on his thoughts, regarding immigration and finance online.  He may even cover it in that book you have.  I think the main point to take is that 'Universal' means exactly that.  I may be mistaken though.

Not so much being bothered, as having the time at the moment.

 

Are you suggesting that 'universal' means 'universal?'  

 

That would be to say EVERY country adopts an identical 'universal' system?  Anything other than that would create unacceptable (on many levels) pull & push factors which would be disastrous for all effected...

 

Let's not leave the obvious off the table in favour of promoting a system for systems sake.....

[Mark J]

I dunno,  You asked about Universal Basic Income.  I provided a link with a video with a speaker, who knows more about finance than most, who explains the concept quite well.  You then went in on an immigration angle.  I'm not suggesting anything other than you read what the esteemed gentleman has to say.  I'm no longer sure what you actually wanted to find out in the first place.

Edited February 19, 2018 by Mark J

[scotspine1]

Universal basic income might work in an economic basketcase like India but it'd never work in the modern economies of Western Europe or the States.