Your response shows how little you understand our current economic system.
Although our economic system is quite complex, I do understand the basic underpinnings and relationships between the variety of parts n pieces within.
Without some form of transfer payment, this system will collapse.
Sorry, but this is false and is a poor starting point in understanding how and why our economy ‘works’. The system does have alot of dead-weight to carry around and consider — all this makes it all the mess inefficient at providing more goods and services to more people.
At present, too much wealth created through labour is being sucked and concentrated in the hands of a few rich folks.
how is this ‘sucking’ achieved? How have you determined ‘too much’ sucking? What is ‘just enough’ sucking?
And just how much food or other basic goods can Mr Gates or his fellow Forbes 500 consume?
that has absolutely nothing to do with anything economic and is just a pure play towards garnering an emotional ‘envy’ response from others — do you want to talk economics or play games?
The US economy relies for over 70% on consumption
another ridiculous statement — an economy does not ‘rely’ on ‘consumption’ nor on ‘production’ — you have been listening to the abstracted fairytale that media and commentors like to throw out when they do not understand the subject of actual economics.
…and when a majority of people no longer have enough money to buy what they collectively contribute to produce, it’s the end game.
what it is… is impossible… and you would understand this if you looked into economics — it really is a fascinating subject and not that hard to grasp the basics.
That’s what some (at the time) smart capitalists like Henry Ford understood: if your workers aren’t paid enough to buy what they produce, your economic system is not sustainable.
again, you are obscuring… could the average lettuce picker purchase a Ford? no, nor could many folks. In fact, even Henry Fords workers could not afford the cars! Can a janitor afford a super-computer just because he works at the plant that produces them? It is an insane and shallow argument.
That is, until you bring in credit to compensate for the loss of consumption power.
Credit, in and of itself, is not a problem — an economy takes it into account. The problem occurs when an extra-market entity (government) inflates credit and distorts the economy greatly… in this vein, you are on the right track.
The 2008 crisis was just a prelude: trying to enable the poor to buy a house they can’t otherwise afford.
…and it wasn’t just trying to enable the ‘poor’ — it was enabling EVERYONE to purchase homes and things which were not prudent for their incomes.
Now to your argument about laziness, because that’s what you imply:
Lazy is an arbitrarily defined, derogatory term: it is not what I implied. I am talking about human nature: we humans want to obtain goods and services for as least cost as possible. It is why both you and I and every human will, if thirsty and desiring a beverage from the fridge, will get up and walk directly to the fridge to obtain it instead of out the front door, around the block, and back into the house and then to the fridge. We would rather spend less effort to obtain the same goal… its simple and obvious.
if people are given a basic income for the rest of their lives, they will do nothing…
again, I did not say that they will do nothing, BUT, they will be less inclined to do something that is of value to others. Lets say Bob is a painter, he paints other peoples houses for a living. He may actually even like painting houses, but it is also hard work and not on ‘his’ schedule to paint other folks houses. The reason he does get up early and go to paint other folks homes is because they are paying him and he desires the money in order to purchase the things HE wants. If Bob is given a certain sum, which he can count on indefinitely, this WILL impact his drive to get out of bed early and go out into the hot sun and labor over painting some smucks house. Maybe he will paint 1 house a month instead of 2 or 3.
Well, go talk to JK Rowling, writing Harry Potter while on UK welfare benefits.
Really? This is your ‘proof’ that UBI would actually boost people’s motivation to find work? Shall I list 1 million folks who sit in front of the TV all day instead of doing something to earn more money?
UBI and the salary from their newly found work now add up and allow them to satisfy even more desires.
except for something known as the diminishing utility of goods (and even money). We ‘work’ in order to survive — it is a powerful motivator. This is the way the universe is setup: either a human must provide for his sustenance or perish. In order to combat this awful state of being, we humans have discovered the free market and exchange which allows us to multiply our efforts in our fight against the universe. Now, if your ‘UBI’ pays for the basic survival things, this takes away a lot of the motivation to work. Not saying that everyone will just lounge around, BUT, there will be a great overall reduction in work accomplished. In addition, you are purposely NOT talking about the other side of the coin: where does this magical UBI money come from? It does not appear out of thin air, it MUST come from the productive efforts of others. In other words, UBI punishes the most productive in society to subsidize the least productive. It does not matter that ‘everyone’ will receive the UBI — it matters who will pay for itmost and who will benefit from it most.
Basically, it’s switching from wage slavery (blackmailing workers to sell their labour force at horrible conditions by saying that if they don’t work they will die because they cannot have access to basic needs) into work incentives (sure, you can lies around and do nothing, and satisfy your most basic needs, but if you find work, you’ll be that much better off).
OMG! really? wage slavery? So back when everyone (90% of the population) was working dusk till dawn scratchin’ out a living from the earth, do you refer that as ‘Farm Slavery’? Do you imply that such conditions were BETTER than the economy of today?
Finally, if you have any children…
…somehow, I knew there would be some sort of ‘Appeal to the Children’ argument….oops… looks like this isn’t actually it though! Excuse me, please continue:
Finally, if you have any children…then you know the laziness argument is bullshit. Try telling your 3 year old to “not do anything and lie around”. It’s impossible.
What? You keep bashing at your Strawman argument that I am saying that people will just lie around and do nothing — I never said that, only that people will do LESS (some may do nothing, most will do less). Please stop beating this dead horse. Also, are you implying that the many things that 3 year olds do are economically valuable? There is a distinct difference between making mudpies and making yummy apple pies that other humans will gladly pay for….
Humans are genetically configured, at birth, to explore, learn… It’s this corrupt society that beats all curiosity and motivation out of you.
I might actually agree with you on this vague statement of yours. But I would not blame the ‘society’, rather it is mostly the education system.
What is the Dream Capitalism sells? Laziness: everyone wants to be filthy rich so they can “do nothing” (as in, being a shareholder and raking enough passive income, a form of Universal Basic Income for the rich, to do nothing). So basically, Capitalism creates laziness to justify the need for wage slavery. Very clever.
There is a large difference between a person who has SAVED enough from his EARNINGS gathered from providing others with valuable products and services that he is able to ‘do nothing’ if he chooses… and a person who has done nothing valuable for others and contributes little or nothing to his fellow man’s welfare but instead acts as a parasite, stealing the property of productive folks and justifying it because he happens to be a breathing human being….