UBI 101: Is It Economically Feasible?

UBI is something that can never work in Nigeria, I categorically say this because of corruption and how the funds might be illy diverted, however I don't feel comfortable, won't it mean that people become fully dependent on the certain payment from the government? Wouldn't people become slaves inasmuch as it takes away poverty? How does government afford it overtime?

Posted Using LeoFinance ^Beta

These programs are for well off country not under develapment

I feel that UBI will just make people lazy. Assistance level for individual can be determined but it should be for some kind of work.

Posted Using LeoFinance ^Beta

Can the top 1% of the world "afford" to take care of the bottom 99%?
Survey says: yes.

The biggest problem with UBI is population control. If you're giving away free resources to people that aren't really giving back anything in return... better make sure that group of people gets smaller rather than multiply. No easy feat with automation and all that.

Posted Using LeoFinance ^Beta

Good video with a few troubling ideas like the great reset i'm not sure i fully agree however, i think some things weren't very specific or could have been a bit fuller but it does inspire me to start my own UBI series. I erroneously after covering the Andrew Yang campaign for president assumed everyone or alot of people were starting from the basis of knowing what UBI is.

The assumption was false i don't think people have a clue what it is. So especially in doing a ubi cryptocurrency project i think it's going to be idea to set up educational videos and at the same time introduce them to our project bitcoin myk. So i'll be alot fuller in detail in the video series but for now i'll just do more brief summaries.

So is it economically feasible. Well many economist agree in the United States we can more than afford it. We'll get into actual numbers and not just feelings on it. In consideration of other nations would have to be done on a case by case basis. I also feel doing a series is very necessary reviewing the comments in this thread and hearing the same buzz commentary on why ubi won't work lol. When you've heard it so much i began to chuckle. Ideas from it makes people lazy. which is provably false. Human beings have to do something and often times what they aren't wiling to do is based more on not being interested than being lazy. Also scientist are also discovering that laziness itself may be a myth. Thats another topic with alot of data. However, it just goes to show it's easy to latch on to what seems that should be the case from a very surface level approach.

Many nations have considered ubi my thoughts are it's going to work better in some lands than others. You need to be able to afford to pay for ubi. I think the major focus on ubi is especially in rich prosperous nations where there is absolutely no reason for the citizens to be living like they are in third world countries. Which is what's happening in the United States which is utterly ridiculous. Every citizen of a prosper western nation atleast should be outraged. Again in developing nations would have to look at it on a case by case basis and as i always start off my conversations on this i prefer this done on the chain but it may have to atleast be attempted at the government level first.

So let's get into the main part of your thread here. As you underlined at a time where something like $3 trillion would have been unimaginable in our fiscal responsibility. This is now playing out as conceivable order of the day stuff. Another thing you have to be careful with when factoring the cost of UBI because first of all i don't know how you all know what it will cost, if you don't know what it will cost lol. So we're going under the assumption it will cost alot.

Will it cost alot? It would have to cost alot right? Maybe .. maybe not in any event most ubi ideas on this subject are generally inaccurate or not fully complete. For example., let's run some numbers let's take the presidential candidate Andrew Yang's researched numbers. As i wanna be specific because its errors on not only what ubi is, as well, they aren't all the same or even close.

So in Yang's proposal the numbers come to something like $3 trillion a year. Alot of money, however its not even really $3 trillion. All things considered it's only about $800 billion a year. Now when you think of the amount of possible stimulus and improvement in health. $800 billion is a bargain. So how is it we arrive at this number. Well again the erroneous mistake when people factor ubi they always factor spending and not what goes back in. Alot of the recipients who need to spend money will spend that money right back into the economy. New businesses will be created.. Less incarceration and theft will happen because the consequences won't be as dire as before. So where as it took about $40k or more a year to imprison and only about a quarter of that a year to educate a person. Those numbers reduce in relation to ubi.

Health gets better so medical cost decline. The outdated metrics we use like gdp get replaced by a better more fully encompassing system like investment in citizens and improvement in education and thinking because children no longer go to school hungry or not as many.

So none of this in any of your models or ideas about ubi pop up anywhere. I wonder why? lol. We will help you all to get it right. At the bare bone level i know people tend to think of money as real. The only thing real is resources and the logistical puzzle of how to get them to the right people at the right time. As well the only shame is people who lock up resources and don't let them improve the world and economy. Unfortunatley Warren Buffet holding on to billoins and his friends trillions of dollars locking effectively not money but the earth's resources doesn't seem like a good idea to me. " Freedom" starts at breakfast means nothing to anybody unless freedom allows them to eat.

What gets missed alot is the idea of human beings in this odd currency system they've created don't understand its not a accurate metric of labor to ratio output. If there was such a thing.. then ideas of freedom and taking ones resources without their permission and taxation would be something everyone agreed upon. The problem is government intervention, corruption.. all this offsets the metric. So people jumping up and down and going well i earned this money you got no right to take it.. it impedes my freedom.

Well it only impedes your freedom because you impede someone elses freedom. So to me that makes everything void. If you win due to some tax benefit or loophole i don't get. because the government says you should have it. Thats not an accurate metric of labor to ratio output. You haven't honestly earned that money. So you're in no position to talk about the government taking anythign from you. We live in a system where the government takes and gives to whom it chooses thats not an accurate metric we can go on. So for those who taking the earth resources then saying things like it belongs to me you got no right to take it. Well are doing the same thing..

I forgot to address the great reset part.. So in other ideas ubi is the global control currency. I'd say thats the usd. American policy and the dollar has already been doing that for the last 100 years. So i dont find any conspiracy theory there. Also ideas like covid speed it up. I think most of the world believes in covid i can't prove it's not conspiracy but i know we've had plagues before. we've had the bubonic plague .. we've had the spanish flu . So first off its no reason for me to just up and jump to its a means to global conspiracies when most scientist under peer review agree with the data. of course, they can be controlled but we always have whistleblowers.. its also assuming everyone can be controlled or bought which is absolutely false. Look at me i'm in crypto i can't be bought im always going against the machine and pyramid schemes and ponzis even if it cost me money so i think it's falsehood to believe the governmetn can really control that many people. They couldn't control Snowden.

They can exploit situations and maybe they have tried with covid. However again with the lack of evidence its just not going to be reasonable to just add to that. That for me requires more evidence and in the scope of mutations and disease what i see of automation it's no reason to believe ubi has to be manufactured in any way to address what many economist and many great thinkers believe to be something that will be logically necessary.

The other part is people always speak of well it means complete control of human beings. Well first off i don't know how moving more of the worlds' resources to be more distributed and create a more healthy economy and not some dual neofeudalistic economy. Maybe someone can shine some light on me about how ubi makes that possible when right now...alot of wealth was taken since the covid pandemic not based on ubi.. So that doesn't make logical sense to me that giving everyone alot of money somehow helps people get richer who already had a strangle hold on most of the earth resources and is a horrible state of affairs of any economy to have so few members and so much control over the earth's resources. Feels similar to many crypto projects how only a few guys have so much control over the entire platform

Posted Using LeoFinance ^Beta

Summary:
In this video, Task discusses Universal Basic Income (UBI), touching on its feasibility in terms of cost and the current economic climate. He delves into the concept of deficit spending, the role of money in economic growth, and the potential benefits of UBI in streamlining government spending. Task also provides examples of wasteful spending, like subsidies for electric vehicles, and hints at a future discussion on how to implement an ideal UBI system.

Detailed Article:
Task begins the video by emphasizing the importance of discussing Universal Basic Income (UBI) in the context of current global economic trends, particularly in light of initiatives like the Great Reset proposed by influential figures such as Klaus Schwab. He points out that UBI is gaining traction as a potential solution to technological unemployment, which has been a growing concern among tech communities. Task then transitions into a discussion on the feasibility of UBI, highlighting the issue of deficit spending and the general public's apprehension towards it, especially in the United States.

Moreover, Task argues that while the idea of trillions of dollars in deficit spending would have been deemed outrageous in the past, the events of 2020, including substantial stimulus packages, have somewhat normalized this approach. He brings attention to the role of money as a tool for economic growth and collaboration, emphasizing that a lack of sufficient funds has hindered economic progress in recent decades.

Task further explores the inefficiencies in existing government spending, particularly in safety net programs like welfare, unemployment insurance, and social security. He contrasts this with the streamlined nature of UBI, pointing out that a universal payment system could potentially reduce administrative costs and eliminate the need for qualification, counseling, and regulation.

The conversation shifts to examples of wasteful spending, with Task specifically mentioning subsidies for electric vehicles. He criticizes the reinstatement of subsidies for companies like Tesla and General Motors, highlighting the ineffectiveness of providing incentives for products that are already in high demand and calling it a form of corporate welfare. Task argues that such subsidies primarily benefit Wall Street and affluent consumers rather than those truly in need.

In conclusion, Task hints at exploring alternative methods for implementing a more efficient UBI system in the following videos. He emphasizes the need for direct stimulus measures outside traditional government channels as a means to address ongoing economic challenges exacerbated by factors like automation and the COVID-19 pandemic.