Mark Zuckerberg calls for new equality, new social contract, and universal income

[Mordan]

I think the population of Finland is more than 2000. It's not UI unless it covers the whole population.

I'll admit I was briefly interested in the idea as complete replacement to ALL welfare programs. Obviously I'd prefer no welfare system at all. But the numbers don't make sense. If you make the UI amount low enough for us to afford, like around $400 a month (that's about 1.5 trillion), no one could come close to living off that. That won't even pay your rent.

The way to introduce the UI is to start with a UI of 10 dollars and remove 10 dollars from every other benefits. Go up slowly until equilibrium. The UI is not supposed to allow your to pay rent or anything. it is an unconditional income that nobody can remove.

[Madison320]

The way to introduce the UI is to start with a UI of 10 dollars and remove 10 dollars from every other benefits. Go up slowly until equilibrium. The UI is not supposed to allow your to pay rent or anything. it is an unconditional income that nobody can remove.

But the numbers would be so low you'd be better off with no UI.

[helmuth_hubener]

No time right now to answer you bro.. just that intelligence is a human concept. Nature does not care.

No worries, I can wait. But again: I am agreeing with you that nature doesn't necessarily care about intelligence.

At the same time: I do! I would see it as a tragedy if our civilization collapses (as it is right now, and will most certainly continue to do unless we take drastic measures to stop it) and the entire world becomes the Middle East. Becomes fundamentalist.

No more innovation.

No more new technology.

No more trips to the moon.

Just starving in the mud with Malthus, forever.

Mother Nature wouldn't care. But maybe you would. She'd label it success! But maybe you wouldn't.

[helmuth_hubener]

In the long term, biological and cultural success is based not on wealth or even happiness but on the number of surviving children and the status they hold.

[tod evans]

In the long term, biological and cultural success is based not on wealth or even happiness but on the number of surviving children and the status they hold.

And ultimately their ability to kill....

No culture survives without killing its enemies...

Peaceful coexistence is a fallacy.

[Origanalist]

[Mordan]

I feel this is going stupid. We talk about Nature as some human entity or thinking entity.

what's Nature to you? The sum of physical laws? Do physical laws care about anything? Nature just is.

We as human inject purpose. We are the product of meta systemic transitions. My own statement about Nature caring about genes is incorrect and stupid. You care about civilization. About moon trips and stuff. If you send a simple program to nearby stars.. it won't care. An complex sentient AI will care about its power supply and EM flare protection. Care is want. I want this and that. I want health and power over my neighbor.

Muslims may or may not take over the world. Their reproductive strategy might be better. Neanderthal disappeared. Genes bad relative to the purpose of survival. Luck bad good luck who knows. They (Neanderthal men) don't care. They are not conscious anymore. Maybe our western civilization is the doom of humanity because we will create an AI that will destroy us all. Muslims should actually take over the world. There are millions of possibilities.

Personally I like the idea of a human bred AI colonizing the galaxy. do I really care? not that much. I won't be there. I want Bitcoin to become a banking standard .

[merkelstan]

I feel this is going stupid.. We are the product of meta systemic transitions.

Achievement unlocked.

[helmuth_hubener]

Do I really care? Not that much. ... There are millions of possibilities.

Well, when one does not care about outcomes, then one can believe -- and do! -- whatever one wants. I guess that's one of the perks?

Or does it mean one can't believe anything at all?

Aww, whatever. Why do anything? For example, finishing this post: why b

[Origanalist]

Well, when one does not care about outcomes, then one can believe -- and do! -- whatever one wants. I guess that's one of the perks?

Or does it mean one can't believe anything at all?

Aww, whatever. Why do anything? For example, finishing this post: why b

Do you sometimes feel as though you're talking to a b

[merkelstan]

The UBI is not being in charge of the poor. It is providing an unconditional basic income to kick start the social ladder and happiness..

Don't know if troll or just stupid.

What is this 'social ladder' you speak of? How does being on the dole incentivize someone to become a productive member of society, gain useful skills, earn an income?

[Origanalist]

Don't know if troll or just stupid.

What is this 'social ladder' you speak of? How does being on the dole incentivize someone to become a productive member of society, gain useful skills, earn an income?

I'm going to pick the latter.

[H. E. Panqui]

...it seems 'libertarian' icon robert heinlein is in some agreement with 'socialist' mark zuckerberg...

Economic independence[edit]

At a number of points in For Us, the Living, Heinlein describes an environment in which individuals are able to choose whether or not to accept a job. Passing references are made to the large number of individuals who take up art or other careers that traditionally do not pay well. The book also points out the short working hours and high wages paid to employees. The book ascribes this flexible working environment to the social credit system (the "Dividend") adopted by the United States which provides enough new capital in the economic system to overcome the problems of overproduction while providing a guaranteed minimal income for all members of society.
For Us, the Living also depicts an early example of homesourcing in fiction. The character of Diana, a nationally renowned dancer, is shown performing in her own home for a broadcast audience, which sees her dancing on sets added by the broadcasting company to her original feed. The mechanism for this homesourcing is not described in much technical detail, but it appears to be similar to a high-definition video signal interfaced with something like modern chroma key technology.
The biggest economic impact in the book, however, is Heinlein's Social Credit system, that he takes many pains to explain: the Heritage Check System, an alternative form of government funding, in place of taxation. The heritage check system is a moderately altered Social Credit system.^[5][6] Its modification reflects Heinlein's more libertarian views and Heinlein's interpretation on how financial systems are affected by the relationship between consumption and production.^[7][8]
The system could be construed as a libertarian's approach to a socialist idea, creating an alternative to a tax system that puts fewer requirements on individuals, while simultaneously providing more for the common welfare.^[9] This is not too surprising, as Heinlein (a proclaimed libertarian) was also fascinated by Social Credit plan that appeared in Canada (which was later shot down by their Federal Government).^[10] In this role, the government becomes less a part of the economy and more a facilitator of it.
The Heritage System in "For Us, the Living" can be summarized by four major actions:

1. A required end to fractional reserve banking. Banks must always have a 100% reserve for any loan they give out.
2. New money is printed only by the government, and then, only enough to counteract the natural deflation that would occur in a system without fractional reserve banking.
3. The government uses this money (and only this money), divided among all of its necessary roles. Any extra is divided evenly among citizens and businesses that over-produce, to offset the loss of not selling their over-production (the government buying the over-production for its own use, which can be bought by citizens later if they so desire at the same price.)
4. Goods bought by the government are later sold by the government (or used by it), and normal governmental services (such as postage) are sold. These goods and services provide the standard backing for the currency, similar to how gold is used to back the gold standard.^[11]

^{https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/For_Us...edy_of_Customs}

[Ender]

I thought the Romans already modernized democracy when they invented the republic.

We're going the opposite direction.

If you want to modernize democracy, get rid of it.

Exactly.

We also have a problem in thinking that the way we live is "normal". That the 9-5 job w/benefits, taxation, and being worked to death for someone else in our best years is "normal".

It is not.

Americans are slaves to a system designed to make them so; this is why public education came about- to make the populace compliant factory workers. Americans must wake up to a better way of life than the current slavery most consider "normal".

I'm sure many of you have heard this story before but it definitely bears repeating:

The Mexican Fisherman and the Investment Banker (Author Unknown)

An American investment banker was at the pier of a small coastal Mexican village when a small boat with just one fisherman docked. Inside the small boat were several large yellowfin tuna. The American complimented the Mexican on the quality of his fish and asked how long it took to catch them.

The Mexican replied, “only a little while.”

The American then asked why didn’t he stay out longer and catch more fish?

The Mexican said he had enough to support his family’s immediate needs.

The American then asked, “but what do you do with the rest of your time?”

The Mexican fisherman said, “I sleep late, fish a little, play with my children, take siestas with my wife, Maria, and stroll into the village each evening where I sip wine, and play guitar with my amigos. I have a full and busy life.”

The American scoffed. “I have an MBA from Harvard, and can help you,” he said. “You should spend more time fishing, and with the proceeds, buy a bigger boat. With the proceeds from the bigger boat, you could buy several boats, and eventually you would have a fleet of fishing boats. Instead of selling your catch to a middle-man, you could sell directly to the processor, eventually opening up your own cannery. You could control the product, processing, and distribution,” he said. “Of course, you would need to leave this small coastal fishing village and move to Mexico City, then Los Angeles, and eventually to New York City, where you will run your expanding enterprise.”

The Mexican fisherman asked, “But, how long will this all take?”

To which the American replied, “Oh, 15 to 20 years or so.”

“But what then?” asked the Mexican.

The American laughed and said, “That’s the best part. When the time was right, you would announce an IPO, and sell your company stock to the public and become very rich. You would make millions!”

“Millions – then what?”

The American said, “Then you could retire. Move to a small coastal fishing village where you could sleep late, fish a little, play with your kids, take siestas with your wife, and stroll to the village in the evenings where you could sip wine and play guitar with your amigos.”

[TheCount]

Mordan is doing a great job of illustrating the socialist tendencies of nationalist movements.

[bunklocoempire]

How would you enforce it?

You know, with more fear-filled group liberty.
Just pretend man isn't in the equation and that liberty is a widgit to be manufactured, and anything is possible!

"Oh great god of algorithms, deliver us from Ramen and robots. Let us cast off our individual relationships and cling to the unaccountable government of man"

The amount of "we" used to try and sell this crap tells all. Group fear about "life" pushed by dead men walking. Lame.

[Swordsmyth]

...it seems 'libertarian' icon robert heinlein is in some agreement with 'socialist' mark zuckerberg...

Economic independence[edit]

At a number of points in For Us, the Living, Heinlein describes an environment in which individuals are able to choose whether or not to accept a job. Passing references are made to the large number of individuals who take up art or other careers that traditionally do not pay well. The book also points out the short working hours and high wages paid to employees. The book ascribes this flexible working environment to the social credit system (the "Dividend") adopted by the United States which provides enough new capital in the economic system to overcome the problems of overproduction while providing a guaranteed minimal income for all members of society.
For Us, the Living also depicts an early example of homesourcing in fiction. The character of Diana, a nationally renowned dancer, is shown performing in her own home for a broadcast audience, which sees her dancing on sets added by the broadcasting company to her original feed. The mechanism for this homesourcing is not described in much technical detail, but it appears to be similar to a high-definition video signal interfaced with something like modern chroma key technology.
The biggest economic impact in the book, however, is Heinlein's Social Credit system, that he takes many pains to explain: the Heritage Check System, an alternative form of government funding, in place of taxation. The heritage check system is a moderately altered Social Credit system.^[5][6] Its modification reflects Heinlein's more libertarian views and Heinlein's interpretation on how financial systems are affected by the relationship between consumption and production.^[7][8]
The system could be construed as a libertarian's approach to a socialist idea, creating an alternative to a tax system that puts fewer requirements on individuals, while simultaneously providing more for the common welfare.^[9] This is not too surprising, as Heinlein (a proclaimed libertarian) was also fascinated by Social Credit plan that appeared in Canada (which was later shot down by their Federal Government).^[10] In this role, the government becomes less a part of the economy and more a facilitator of it.
The Heritage System in "For Us, the Living" can be summarized by four major actions:

1. A required end to fractional reserve banking. Banks must always have a 100% reserve for any loan they give out.
2. New money is printed only by the government, and then, only enough to counteract the natural deflation that would occur in a system without fractional reserve banking.
3. The government uses this money (and only this money), divided among all of its necessary roles. Any extra is divided evenly among citizens and businesses that over-produce, to offset the loss of not selling their over-production (the government buying the over-production for its own use, which can be bought by citizens later if they so desire at the same price.)
4. Goods bought by the government are later sold by the government (or used by it), and normal governmental services (such as postage) are sold. These goods and services provide the standard backing for the currency, similar to how gold is used to back the gold standard.^[11]

^{https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/For_Us...edy_of_Customs}

Heinlein also wanted only Active Duty/Retired military to have the vote. Any argument to authority (other than GOD) is inherently weak.

[CaptUSA]

It should be noted that a Universal Basic Income has been suggested by MANY libertarian-ish thinkers as a replacement to the welfare state.

In theory, it would be much better.

But my problem with it is that the State never "replaces" anything! The EITC is a form of UBI... What did it replace?! Nothing. It just builds onto the existing system of theft and handouts.

[NorthCarolinaLiberty]

Okay, so I went thru all the replies, and I did not see anybody post the obvious.

If it's a universal basic income, then everybody gets the same amount, right? If that is the case, then you're just passing money in a circle and you're back to square one. Everybody ends up where they started.

If everyone does not get the same amount, then you're just advocating the system you have now.

[NorthCarolinaLiberty]

Mordan is doing a great job of illustrating the socialist tendencies of nationalist movements.

And you're doing a great job illustrating the socialist tendencies of progressive movements.

[Madison320]

If it's a universal basic income, then everybody gets the same amount, right? If that is the case, then you're just passing money in a circle and you're back to square one. Everybody ends up where they started.

That would be true but not everyone is contributing the same amount.

I think the solution is to only allow net contributors to vote in elections. Parasites should not have a vote.

[NorthCarolinaLiberty]

That would be true but not everyone is contributing the same amount.

I debated someone on a forum about this topic, except this person said every adult receives the exact same amount. Every adult. I think the amount quoted was 12k per year. This person could not see that such a program is just passing money around to one another, leaving everyone with the exact same amount. Furthermore, this person could not account for the money lost to administer such retardedness.

The person I debated held many (in my opinion) extreme progressive views. This is the logic you're up against. No child left behind.

[Madison320]

I debated someone on a forum about this topic, except this person said every adult receives the exact same amount. Every adult. I think the amount quoted was 12k per year. This person could not see that such a program is just passing money around to one another, leaving everyone with the exact same amount. Furthermore, this person could not account for the money lost to administer such retardedness.

The person I debated held many (in my opinion) extreme progressive views. This is the logic you're up against. No child left behind.

I agree that the definition of UI is that everyone receives the same amount, but I don't think it's just passing money around. That would only be true if everyone paid in the same amount. For example if everyone received 12K but they also paid 12k in taxes, you'd be right. But some people pay millions in taxes and only get 12K while others pay nothing and get 12K.

[Dr.No.]

Instead of universal income, why not have a job guarantee? Many government departments are understaffed, at all levels. Why not offer jobs for $10/hour, with full 401K, vacation time, and healthcare? This provides the dignity of work, training/education, etc. If the person finds a job in the private sector, they can leave. This also eliminates the need for any kind of welfare save for serious disability.

These people could work on cleaning the streets. Fixing/painting buildings. Shortening lines at the DMV or Post Office. Etc. etc.

[devil21]

Instead of universal income, why not have a job guarantee? Many government departments are understaffed, at all levels. Why not offer jobs for $10/hour, with full 401K, vacation time, and healthcare? This provides the dignity of work, training/education, etc. If the person finds a job in the private sector, they can leave. This also eliminates the need for any kind of welfare save for serious disability.

These people could work on cleaning the streets. Fixing/painting buildings. Shortening lines at the DMV or Post Office. Etc. etc.

See my post on page 1. Been there, done that. How did it work out in the USSR? Or will it be different this time?

[NorthCarolinaLiberty]

Instead of universal income, why not have a job guarantee? Many government departments are understaffed, at all levels. Why not offer jobs for $10/hour, with full 401K, vacation time, and healthcare? This provides the dignity of work, training/education, etc. If the person finds a job in the private sector, they can leave. This also eliminates the need for any kind of welfare save for serious disability.

I totally agree with you. I think we need to reauthorize the Americans with No Abilities Act. This blue text is from an article about the act:

The Americans With No Abilities ACT (ANAA)

The Democratic Senate is considering sweeping legislation that will provide new benefits for many more Americans. The Americans With No Abilities Act is being hailed as a major legislative goal by advocates of the millions of Americans who lack any real skills and ambition.


“Roughly 50 percent of Americans do not possess the competence and drive necessary to carve out a meaningful role for themselves in society,” said California Sen. Barbara Boxer. “We can no longer stand by and allow People of Inability (POI) to be ridiculed and passed over. With this legislation, employers will no longer be able to grant special favors to a small group of workers, simply because they have some idea of what they are doing.”

These people could work on cleaning the streets. Fixing/painting buildings. Shortening lines at the DMV or Post Office. Etc. etc.

Yes, yes! Nancy Pelosi addressed this:

In a Capitol Hill press conference, Nancy Pelosi pointed to the success of the U.S. Postal Service, which has a long-standing policy of providing opportunity without regard to performance. At the state government level, the Department of Motor Vehicles also has an excellent record of hiring Persons with No Ability (63 percent).







http://www.theonion.com/article/cong...lities-act-541

[H. E. Panqui]

Okay, so I went thru all the replies, and I did not see anybody post the obvious.

If it's a universal basic income, then everybody gets the same amount, right? If that is the case, then you're just passing money in a circle and you're back to square one. Everybody ends up where they started.

...just because everyone gets treated equally as to the benefits of using 'newly-created' money in 'the first round of spending' doesn't mean everyone 'ends up where they started'...the outcome(s) after the 2nd 3rd 4th etc.............'rounds of spending' will be widely different based upon the multitude of different exchanges/transactions...harder/smarter working people who economize will certainly accumulate many many more 'point$ in the great scoreboard of life' than people who don't/won't 'work'...

..[btw ncl, i edited out your last sentence and i wish i hadn't...it was a good/sound point]...

[H. E. Panqui]

That would be true but not everyone is contributing the same amount.

I think the solution is to only allow net contributors to vote in elections. Parasites should not have a vote.

...you wouldn't necessarily have to fund this with DIRECT taxation if 'the government' created 'its own' 'debt-free money' rather than borrowing from private secret-squirrel banksters number$ that said banksters create 'out of thin air' and then 'lend at interest' to 'the government' (us)....ugh...

...btw, we've had more honest, insightful conversation here about 'money' than rush, glenn, sean and ALL the rest, in their stinking years of 'providing information'... truly 'low-info' republicrats abound...and as ?ford put it, roughly, 'if they ever figure it out, there will be a revolution before tomorrow morning'...

[NorthCarolinaLiberty]

But some people pay millions in taxes and only get 12K while others pay nothing and get 12K.

...just because everyone gets treated equally as to the benefits of using 'newly-created' money in 'the first round of spending' doesn't mean everyone 'ends up where they started'...

Maybe it does not matter, but that change is my whole point. If the millionaire gets 12k and has to give it to the deadbeat, then the net effect means its no longer universal. This idea is sold with a cute name, but just ends up taking money from one person to give to another. That's no different than what we have now, except you're just taking even more from the millionaire.

It's just chicanery with a slick name to boot.

[Madison320]

Maybe it does not matter, but that change is my whole point. If the millionaire gets 12k and has to give it to the deadbeat, then the net effect means its no longer universal. This idea is sold with a cute name, but just ends up taking money from one person to give to another. That's no different than what we have now, except you're just taking even more from the millionaire.

It's just chicanery with a slick name to boot.

I agree. I don't see how it can possibly work.