On unconditional basic income
11 October 2016 09:28 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
"Your unconditional basic income is a nice idea, but here's the flaw in your system: It reestablishes how the old social benefits worked, but it doesn't change anything on the factor "prices". As well as that it doesn't change those facts that still each year it's the goal of all national economies to impress each other by proving how much percentage they can compile in attaching zeroes to the sums of the last year ( = GDP) and that the economy it ought to function in only can keep itself up by generating lots of fictional money that doesn't exist out of credits it didn't hand out to one customer, so it's whole self-asserted "growth" is nothing more than multiplying the sums that have originally been there before a few hundred, a few thousand years ago. In other terms: Not only you keep adjusting the sum each year, you also don't change anything that makes it so nessecary that this basic income needs to exist at all. You only make the circumstances takeable again. But that because you don't really know what you're trying to fight when you talk about "overcoming capitalism".
You're still one of those dreamy starry-eyed idealists that don't know how the world they live in really works."
You're still one of those dreamy starry-eyed idealists that don't know how the world they live in really works."
(no subject)
Date: 11 October 2016 07:59 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 12 October 2016 01:55 am (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 12 October 2016 06:54 am (UTC)Capitalists just say then "okay, if people got more money in their pockets, let's gather that money up in our pockets again!".
(no subject)
Date: 12 October 2016 12:40 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 12 October 2016 02:03 pm (UTC)Not even to say: It might be a good utopian imagination, but if the unconditional income is higher than if someone goes to a job daily - even if you let people keep both, their income despite having a job to earn some extra (opposite to most practices of receiving money from the state), it might have that effect that people rather stay at home because work gets them a lot of obstacles and things to do per day, but the reward from that effort just isn't worth starting to work anyway.
But despite the income, you'll still be in need for someone who bakes break or treats other peoples' diseases.
It absolutely changes nothing in the way the current system is run.
(no subject)
Date: 12 October 2016 02:45 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 12 October 2016 03:57 pm (UTC)An argument against asking for this is often "they also got money for saving banks doing shit, so they got that money too!", which is correct on that hand, but on the other even that bank-saving and saving-enterprises isn't just for free. They need to raise credits, borrowed from the IMF and what-not, so what have you actually won then? One knows what the policies of institutions like these are, the unconditional income won't survive for long if you've got to beg those for money. So - how you wanna make that?
I never found or received an answer to this. And such circumstances always let me guess "hit it right in the bull's eye", found the hidden error in the picture.
(no subject)
Date: 12 October 2016 06:52 am (UTC)It only took my a few years further and a leisure hour to get an idea why and it nails it down very specifically.