Helicopter money, MMT, magic money for everyone, unlimited and no downsides, right? Not so fast. The Hidden Costs Of A Universal Basic Income https://www.zerohedge.com/personal-finance/hidden-costs-universal-basic-inco... https://mises.org/wire/hidden-costs-universal-basic-income The universal basic income (UBI) is gaining popularity as the alternative to the current welfare system. The idea is to give each citizen the same amount of money, no matter if he or she works or not. Therefore, unlike traditional welfare systems, the UBI has no means test, nor willingness-to-work test. Nobody would be then left without a livelihood even if there is no work for him. Doesn’t that sound great? The problem is that the program must be financed somehow. Let us assume for simplicity that there are 250 million adult Americans and that each of them would receive $1,000 monthly (as presidential candidate Andrew Yang proposes). So we get a total cost of $250 billion monthly and $3 trillion annually. It would amount to about 14 percent of US GDP, or 42 percent of total government spending, or 73 percent of the federal outlays. For comparison, this is more than the total expenditure on health care, defense, and education. And yet we are talking about “just” $12,000 annually (or 19 percent of the median household salary, or 36 percent of the median personal income). Good luck with such an expensive program! This is why the UBI is a utopian idea. Its introduction would require either a departure from universality (e.g., providing benefits only for young people), or a departure from unconditionality (e.g., the introduction of an income criterion), or reducing payment to small symbolic amounts. Other options include a radical increase in taxes, or implementing "modern monetary theory" and launching the printing press. The first two options would distort the idea of ​​the program, transforming it into another traditional welfare program. The third scenario would not fulfill the program goals, as it would neither eradicate poverty nor significantly increase social security. And the last two options would have negative overall economic consequences that could lead to the results contrary to the intentions of the program, (e.g., an increase in the unemployment rate as a result of additional tax burden on wages), or a reduction in the amount of real benefits as a result of increased inflation. It means that the implementation of the UBI at a substantial level without incurring significant economic costs is a myth. ... On Wed, Mar 20, 2019 at 12:51:36PM +1100, Zenaan Harkness wrote:

UBI - $1,000 a month - an unstoppable, non-partisan message:

Andrew Yang Draws Crowd of 3,000 Supporters in San Francisco http://dstormer6em3i4km.onion/andrew-yang-draws-crowd-of-3000-supporters-in-...

… Yang is successfully uniting the political left and political right with a very simple message. He understands that all people regardless of their political beliefs would like $1,000 a month in free money. That’s because there’s lots of things a person can do with $1,000 a month in free money. It’s a winning message and there are no flaws with it.

And what are his political opponents going to do during the debates? All he has to say is that he’s the only candidate in the field who wants to give everybody $1,000 a month in free money. This marks instant defeat for his opposition because they do not want to give everybody $1,000 a month in free money.

The money system is all fake anyway. They are just digits punched into computers run by Jewish bankers. So who cares if $1,000 of this fake Jewish money is deposited into everybody’s bank accounts on a monthly basis?

If Yang’s plan of giving $1,000 a month to everybody results in an economic collapse as some doomsday theorists are predicting, then that’s an even better result than we could hope for. It’d be like the end of Fight Club when everybody’s bank accounts were reset to zero. There are literally no flaws with this plan.

Huwaites are firetrucked gen-X shirt-libbers these days, so messages of self responsibility breeze right in one ear and right out the other - so if you want "muh spiritual lessons", bring on UBI and a sooner than expected systemic ponzi collapse FTW muffuluggerah!

MUGGAHMUFFULUGGERAHAHAHHAHHHHAHHAHAAAAAAAAHHHHHHHHHHH!!!!!!!!

Flawless plan... no downsides.

On Thu, Mar 14, 2019 at 09:39:47PM +1100, Zenaan Harkness wrote:

...

UBI? You bet it!

Trump has lost his base.

Trump is a MIGA shill (Make Israel Great Again). About that - almost the entire USA BigGov is MIGA.

"Oh no! AIPAC does not exist, and even if it does it serves the American people because Israel is our greatest ally! MAGA!"

MIGA Shills Fail to Deliver the May-Mays https://dailystormer.name/miga-shills-fail-to-deliver-the-may-mays/

The manufacturing, transport and much of the commercial world shall largely/ continue to, automate, with jobs disappearing as a result.

With trade and commerce, comes a money pyramid.

Setting aside for another conversation the fiat ponzi that is the non-constitutional Federal Reserve banking system (which is neither federal, nor reserve), whoever prints the money (Rothschilds or your Gov.) does not change the wealth percolating to the top of the pyramid hierarchy. Removing the Federal Reserve from the mix simply means a potentially much longer time frame before bubbles burst, and possibly greater stability.

So, at the moment, most of the money printed each year goes to service debt (i.e. goes to the Rothschilds) and most of the rest goes to Lockheed Martin and Co.

In the USA, assume ~300 million people, getting $1K per month, this = ~ $300 billion per month into citizens hands.

The majority of that goes to rent, food, transport, electricity and communications. I.e., straight into the economy with its consequent multi level taxation and money velocity - i.e., a fair whack goes back to Gov. and the rest goes to those at the top of the commerce pyramid.

That's better than the majority of each month's Gov "money" print going to the Rothschilds and Lockheed Martin Death Complex.

So, +1 for UBI in the neo world novo economy ...

UBI, what could possibly go wrong? IOW, be (very) careful what you ask for ... Universal Basic Income: A Dream Come True For Despots https://www.zerohedge.com/political/universal-basic-income-dream-come-true-d... ... “What do you think the potential disadvantages of the basic income would be, then?” [My neighbour] replies, “There aren’t any.” Trade-Offs Are Inescapable ... But the universal basic income seems unaffected. It’s going to cure poverty, eliminate stress, reduce crime, unleash entrepreneurship, emancipate women, save us from AI, and fight climate change. I’m not not exaggerating. I googled, and there are multiple articles claiming that, not only will the UBI save the economy from flatlining due to a lack of consumer demand by increasing consumption, but somehow also put a halt to global warming as well — contradictory as these two aims may seem. ... Trusting the World's Regimes to Do Good? Most people agree that politics is a dirty game and that political powers will inevitably be used to further the agenda of officeholders and their cronies. That said, despite being immersed in the current thinking regarding UBI for three years now, I have seen precious little worrying as to what the government — or a future government — might actually do once it has seized control over everyone’s purse strings. After all, these governments are composed of the same people who launched a permanent war in the Middle East, wasting trillions of dollars on destroying millions of lives. These governments bailed out the banks from the public purse and gave themselves raises after telling the rest of the nation we had to tighten our belts. They have robbed the young of the opportunity to own a home by sending house prices through the roof and mean to leave them a nation in ruinous debt. They continue locking away huge numbers of people for decades for victimless crimes, leaving their children to be raised single-handed. They created an oligopoly of higher education provision forcing generations into student debt that cannot be defaulted on, and healthcare systems that are so restrictive that people must pay inordinate sums to get care or are otherwise forced onto government waiting lists so long that many of their conditions are chronic or untreatable before they are seen to. Am I the only one who thinks these powers may be used for evil rather than good? China’s “Credit System” One such cautionary tale may be found in China. ... [ -------------- money quote --------------- ] Now a basic income guarantee may begin universal, but as the years wear on and it proves expensive to provide, it might be that corners have to be cut in order to ensure its continued fungibility. Hardly anyone will object to the UBI being withdrawn from criminals, for example. And then perhaps for antisocial behaviour. People may have their universal basic income docked for committing petty crimes like littering the street. A few might moan that this is the beginning of a government social engineering program, but to most people this will seem like a quite a sensible and reasonable measure. After all, we all “benefit” from the benevolence of society providing our roads and schools, and now our basic income. So if some choose to repay society in disrespect, with such vulgar behaviour as littering, throwing away the ends of cigarettes, spitting on the street, failing to remove their dog foul, or what have you, why should society continue to furnish them with the fullness of a basic income? Besides, if their basic income is docked for several months they are unlikely to repeat the crime — they will soon learn their lesson. It will save money on law enforcement, lengthy court trials, and prison sentences as well, all of which are costly. Clipping people’s basic income will soon seem the most sensible and appropriate response to many crimes and misdemeanours. People may be sanctioned for things like not sorting out their recycling. After all, the government provides garbage disposal for us, and the environment is at stake. Governments are already looking at sanctioning people for this kind of behaviour, so the step would not be much of a leap. These steps will simply be designed to acclimatize people to the idea of being “nudged” in the right direction before more radical measures are taken to use the UBI to shape their behaviour. ... In China people can have their social credit score docked for posting fake news online. We may, of course, ask, fake according to whom? After all, the Chinese government maintains that the Tienanmen Square Massacre of 1989 was “fake news” drummed up by the West to undermine the regime. Closer to home, the mainstream media was entirely complicit in selling the war on Iraq to the public, but I very much doubt we will see people being sanctioned for posting news from mainstream sources such as the BBC or MSNBC. Our leaders are above falsifying our historic records and sending embarrassing incidents down the memory hole for permanent deletion. The purse strings of the universal basic income also present a grave threat to freedom of speech. Anyone who has been following the “woke wars” on Twitter and other social media platforms will have heard of people receiving lifetime bans for tweeting things like “Men are never women.” Now whether you believe such a message is transphobic or otherwise, you may at least believe that someone has the right to tweet it, and be duly educated as to the wrongs of their action by other users. The universal basic income could easily become the new weapon to wield against those who hold unpopular opinions or those that are simply no longer politically correct. It will be first used to strike against unpopular groups such as racists, misogynists, homophobes, and bigots. Not many people will come to their defense when they lose their basic income for spreading hate. But one day you yourself may hold an unpopular opinion that is relatively benign. Maybe you will say that people shouldn’t have their basic income docked just because they say unpopular things on the internet. You will not just be slapped with a Twitter ban, you will potentially lose $1000 a month. ... The UBI will institutionalise the state as each of our patrons — and us as wards of the state. Once this relationship is established we will enter into a frightening era where the government is our provider and the UBI can easily be weaponized by our rulers to shape us into compliance.