EconomicCorner005

[richardmurray]

Universal Basic Income is coming, fiscal capitalism with modern technological capabilities deletes the need for physical toiling human labor, in regions in humanity that have the militaristic power + natural resources to maintainthe technological capability.

But what are some general problems? 

• Giving money allows for those, like telemarketers, like similar scammers to acquire large profits. How can they be stopped absent a level of legal criminalization to such activities that is absent in the financially wealthiest governments. 
• No modern multiracial populaces has a consistent legal or administrative history of providing any service equally to individuals regardless of their race: gender/phenotype/age/language/edutation level/health/financial value. So how can universal basic income?
• The ability of the usa to raise its own debt or generate more debt for itself absent a fear of debt collection by its military power allows for a severe abuse in its general populace

 The prime problem i see in the Black populace in the usa, the phenotypical race made up of Black: DOSers/Caribbeana/Africana/Asiana/First Peoples, is the belief from many Black people in the usa that black people, not non blacks , are inadequate or irresponsible or something similar to have Universal Basic Income.

For Black DOSers this comes from the legacy of enslavement and the minority of Blacks circa 1865 who were able to overcome white terror who suggested all black people could overcome said white terror but lacked something to do it. 

Finland’s universal basic income trial made people happier—but not employed
By Charlotte Jee 
February 11, 2019

A trial where unemployed people in Finland were given a basic income for two years did not get them into work—but it make them healthier and happier, according to initial results. [ https://julkaisut.valtioneuvosto.fi/bitstream/handle/10024/161361/Report_The Basic Income Experiment 20172018 in Finland.pdf?sequence=1&isAllowed=y OR https://1drv.ms/b/c/ea9004809c2729bb/ETkUV74BKBlJrvXrruWIjFcBkmRyuTzQGqIF8iPqGMceOQ?e=O5jIJI ]  

The experiment: From January 2017 to December 2018, 2,000 unemployed people in Finland received an unconditional monthly payment of €560 ($634) instead of their usual unemployment benefit (a similar sum). The goal was to see if this would help them get back to work. The pilot found that basic income recipients were no more likely to find work than a control group who did not receive the payments. However, they reported significantly better overall well-being. A final report on the trial will be released in 2020.

Universal basic income:  The idea [ https://www.technologyreview.com/2018/06/20/141704/basic-income-could-work-if-you-do-it-canada-style/ ]  is to give everyone the same monthly income, regardless of means. It’s a concept that’s grown in popularity in recent years, as part of thinking around how to combat job losses and insecurity caused by automation. It has also been tested in Canada, Namibia, India, and other countries. [ https://www.technologyreview.com/2018/12/27/103611/universal-basic-income-had-a-rough-2018/ ]  

Is that it?: Inevitably, the results from Finland raise questions about whether UBI works. However, it’s worth pointing out that the data only covers 2017, the first year of the trial, and it’s questionable whether focusing solely on people who are unemployed can really qualify as a “universal” basic income. We’ve got extra data to work with, but the debate is far from settled.

by Charlotte Jee

URL
https://www.technologyreview.com/2019/02/11/66119/finlands-universal-basic-income-trial-made-people-happier-but-not-employed/ 

 

LINKED IN THE ARTICLE ABOVE

 

Basic income could work—if you do it Canada-style
A Canadian province is giving people money with no strings attached—revealing both the appeal and the limitations of the idea.
By Brian Bergsteinarchive page
June 20, 2018

Dana Bowman, 56, expresses gratitude for fresh produce at least 10 times in the hour and a half we’re having coffee on a frigid spring day in Lindsay, Ontario. Over the many years she scraped by on government disability payments, she tended to stick to frozen vegetables. She’d also save by visiting a food bank or buying marked-down items near or past their sell-by date.

But since December, Bowman has felt secure enough to buy fresh fruit and vegetables. She’s freer, she says, to “do what nanas do” for her grandchildren, like having all four of them over for turkey on Easter. Now that she can afford the transportation, she might start taking classes in social work in a nearby city. She feels happier and healthier—and, she says, so do many other people in her subsidized apartment building and around town. “I’m seeing people smiling and seeing people friendlier, saying hi more,” she says.

Jim Garbutt sees moods brightening, too, at A Buy & Sell Shop, a store he and his wife run on Lindsay’s main street. Sales are brisker for most of what they sell: used furniture, kitchen items, novelties. A Buy & Sell Shop is the kind of place where people come in just to chat—“we’re like Cheers, without the alcohol,” Garbutt says—and more and more people seem hopeful. “Spirits are up,” he says.

What changed? Lindsay, a compact rectangle amid the lakes northeast of Toronto, is at the heart of one of the world’s biggest tests of a guaranteed basic income. In a three-year pilot funded by the provincial government, about 4,000 people in Ontario are getting monthly stipends to boost them to at least 75 percent of the poverty line. That translates to a minimum annual income of $17,000 in Canadian dollars (about $13,000 US) for single people, $24,000 for married couples. Lindsay has about half the people in the pilot—some 10 percent of the town’s population.

The trial is expected to cost $50 million a year in Canadian dollars; expanding it to all of Canada would cost an estimated $43 billion annually. But Hugh Segal, the conservative former senator who designed the test, thinks it could save the government money in the long run. He expects it to streamline the benefits system, remove rules that discourage people from working, and reduce crime, bad health, and other costly problems that stem from poverty. Such improvements occurred during a basic-income test in Manitoba in the 1970s.

People far beyond Canada will be watching closely, too, because a basic income has become Silicon Valley’s favorite answer to the question of how society should deal with the massive automation of jobs. Tech investors such as Facebook cofounder Chris Hughes and Sam Altman, president of the startup incubator Y Combinator, are funding pilot projects to examine what people do when they get money with no strings attached. Hughes’s Economic Security Project will pay for 100 people in Stockton, California, to get $500 a month for 18 months. Y Combinator ran a small-scale test in Oakland, California, last year; beginning in 2019 it will give $1,000 a month to 1,000 people over three to five years, in locations still to be determined.

This momentum figures to keep building as AI and robotics make even more inroads. Legislators in Hawaii are beginning to study the prospects for a basic income. The lawmaker who has led the effort, Democrat Chris Lee, worries that self-driving cars and automated retail checkout could be the beginning of the end for a lot of human labor in Hawaii’s service-based economy. If machines can handle tasks in tourism and hospitality, Lee says, “there is no fallback industry for jobs to be created in.”

But there’s an important difference between that vision for a basic income and the experiment in Ontario. The Canadians are testing it as an efficient antipoverty mechanism, a way to give a relatively small segment of the population more flexibility to find work and to strengthen other strands of the safety net. That’s not what Silicon Valley seems to imagine, which is a universal basic income that placates broad swaths of the population. The most obvious problem with that idea? Math. Many economists concluded long ago that it would be too expensive, especially when compared with the cost of programs to create new jobs and train people for them. That’s why the idea didn’t take off after tests in the 1960s and ’70s. It’s largely why Finland decided not to extend a small basic income trial.

If any place can illuminate both the advantages of basic income and the problems it can’t solve, it will be Lindsay. The town is prosperous by some measures, with a median household income of $55,000 and a historic downtown district where new condos and a craft brewery are on the way. But that masks how tough it is for a lot of people to get by. Manufacturing in the surrounding area, known as the Kawartha Lakes, has declined since the 1980s. Many people juggle multiple jobs, including seasonal work tied to tourism in the summer and fall. Technology is part of the story too: robots milk cows now.

Basic income as a social equalizer
The Olde Gaol Museum is indeed an old jail, but it’s also a showcase for things that reveal the texture of Lindsay’s history—uniforms that nurses from town wore in France during World War I; tools and maps used by railway workers when this was a hub for eight railroad lines; 19th-century paintings by a local artist who depicted the timeless regional pastimes of canoeing and fishing. When curatorial assistant Ian McKechnie gives me a tour, he stops and plays a lovely tune on a foot-pumped organ called a harmonium that was made in Ontario more than a hundred years ago.

McKechnie, 27, has worked at the museum for seven years and is devoted to it. Unlike his previous job, when he was briefly a laborer at a goat cheese factory, it offers a chance to be creative and connect with many people in the community. He doesn’t just give tours: he researches and organizes exhibits and writes supporting materials. But on the day we meet, the museum is not paying him to be at work, and therein lies a story about why he and the Olde Gaol’s operations supervisor, Lisa Hart, both signed up for the basic income.

The museum gets almost all its revenue from grants, and one just expired. The manager of the museum recently left, and so it falls largely to McKechnie and Hart to keep things going until another grant comes in. Even when it does, these won’t be lucrative jobs—perhaps $20,000 a year for McKechnie’s. They could find positions in the area that pay more, but both would much rather continue their labor of love at the museum. Leaving now might undercut its momentum toward a more sustainable future, which could include a new cultural center that would connect the museum with a local art gallery.

Thanks to the basic-income trial, both can afford to stay on with the museum. And in the meantime, Hart says, she will no longer put off buying new eyeglasses. The basic income “allows you to spend time on something that’s valuable,” she says. “It’s very sad to walk away from something where you’re valued and doing something meaningful for the community because it just can’t pay you a lot.”

This highlights an intriguing aspect of basic income: it functions in different ways for different people. The way Hart describes it, it’s fuel for cultural development. For Dana Bowman, who might now take classes in social work and regularly volunteers at a community garden, it’s a food subsidy, an educational grant, and a neighborhood improvement fund all in one. For a married couple who own a health-food restaurant that barely covers its costs, it’s a small-business booster. A man who hurt his back working in a warehouse told me he hoped it could augment his employer’s disability payments. A student who was about to graduate from a technical college and had a job lined up said he planned to use the extra income to pay down school loans and start saving for a house.

For McKechnie, the basic income is something broader: a social equalizer, a recognition that people who make little or no money are often doing things that are socially valuable. “It gives one the assurance that the work you’re doing is not in vain, even though you’re not working in a bank or doing other things that are considered part of a career,” he says.

Even if a basic income turns out to be a flexible and efficient government program, it’s not clear that it would be a great way to respond to technological unemployment. Over and over again, people in Lindsay told me it won’t reduce people’s demand for jobs.

As a practical matter, the Ontario trial doesn’t pay enough to eliminate most people’s need to work or to rely on family for support. But even if a richer payout were feasible, that wouldn’t change the philosophy of the program. Basic-income supporters want to improve the odds that people will take better care of themselves and their families. They want a humane and dignifying way of helping people who simply can’t work. But they also argue that most people generally want and expect to work. “It’s not supposed to be welfare for people displaced by technology,” says one of the basic-income advocates, Mike Perry, who runs a medical practice in Kawartha Lakes.

Moreover, while giving poor people money helps them, it still leaves urgent and difficult questions unanswered about the impacts of automation and globalization. What will it take to ensure that entire regions aren’t left far behind economically? What can be done to boost the supply of good, steady jobs? Basic income “is only the beginning,” says Roderick Benns, former vice chair of the Ontario Basic Income Network. “It’s not just ‘cut a check and get on with building the corporatocracy.’ We have to ask what else we are doing as a society to get people to reimagine what they can do with their lives.”

Benns, the author of several books, grew up in Lindsay. Until recently, he and his wife, Joli Scheidler-Benns, lived three hours away, but the pilot is so important to them that they moved back so he can chronicle it in a new publication called the Lindsay Advocate and she can do research for her PhD on the subject at York University. After Benns describes how basic income should augment job training and other social programs, Scheidler-Benns, who is originally from Michigan, nods and then adds: “I don’t see how it could work in the US.”

After all, she says, Canada does many other things to strengthen its safety net and reduce inequality. For one, it has universal health care. School funding in Ontario is primarily allocated at the province level rather than being heavily dependent on local property taxes, as it is in the US. Canada also traditionally spends about 1 percent of its GDP on workforce-development programs, according to the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development. That’s about half of the proportion in other advanced countries, but it still dwarfs the US figure, which is about 0.3 percent.

Funding a different mind-set

Tony Tilly is the outgoing president of Fleming College, which specializes in preparing people in Kawartha Lakes for careers in both white-collar work and trades. About half the students don’t come right from high school; they’ve already been in the workforce and hope to learn a new skill.

He supports a basic income because he thinks it could help people break out of poverty that has beset their families for generations. But even if the program continues past the three-year trial period, Fleming’s essential challenge would remain: how to prepare students for a world in which more and more tasks are being automated.

Fleming is still priming its graduates to work in traditional strongholds of the regional economy: jobs tied to the environment and natural resources, infrastructure development, mining, construction, and government. But the school is trying to instill a different mind-set from the one students had when Tilly became its president 14 years ago. They now get more emphasis on so-called soft skills: teamwork, problem-solving, personal interaction. Above all, he says, they need to know “not only how to do some particular job but how to contribute overall to the success of an organization, whether it’s a manufacturer or a provider of social services.”

If the basic-income plan works as expected, Fleming might get even more students than it otherwise would. Dana Bowman could be one of them.

It’s been years since she last had a paying job, as a receptionist. She has been on disability for a variety of ailments, including skin cancer and arthritis. But she feels she is up to doing some part-time work. In 2015, two years before the basic-income trial, Bowman asked a case worker if she could get help paying for transportation to a Fleming campus that offers classes in social work. The official said that would lead to cuts in other benefits Bowman relied on. The message Bowman says she got was: “You’re unemployable. You’re not worth investing in.”

In contrast, the basic-income plan ensures a minimum for her without micromanaging how she spends it. For every dollar that recipients earn above the minimum, their payout from the province will be cut by 50 cents, but no one is made worse off by working.

Even being able to consider that prospect, Bowman says, has been good for her. “I don’t feel ‘less than.’ I feel ‘equal to.’ Not feeling guilty walking down the street, thinking, ‘I didn’t do enough today,’” she says. “People want to do something. People aren’t inclined to do nothing.”

by Brian Bergstein

URL
https://www.technologyreview.com/2018/06/20/141704/basic-income-could-work-if-you-do-it-canada-style/ 
 

Last Edition 

https://aalbc.com/tc/topic/11377-economiccorner004/

Tool Deviantart Dreamup

prompt: diamond italian renaissance door constructed by Lorenzo Ghiberti explaining Universal Basic Income 
artstyle dreamup
aspect ratio 3:4
prompt strength 20
negative prompt : dull, poor lighting, multiple images,uneven

 

[ProfD]

I believe a Universal Basic Income (UBI) will become a necessity as many jobs will be replaced with technology. 

 

Seems it would be easier to lower the cost of everything but of course wealthy folks and shareholders aren't interested in losing money for the greater good of humanity.

[Pioneer1]

UBI is a deception.

It's going to be a way to grab and maintain more control over the population.

They'll guarantee you a certain amount of income, just on the strength.

But then every little thing you do wrong or that doesn't conform...they'll use that as an excuse to penalize you and start chipping away at your funds.

For example..........

You'll start off with $1,500 a month.
-Don't get vaccinated, they take away $300 a month as penalty

-Discriminate against a trans person, they take away $500 a month as penalty
-Send a nasty email about some political figure and they find out, they take away $200 a month as penalty
-Try to turn in an illegal immigrant, you get charged a penalty

It may work if they absolutely guarantee the income with no deductions or penalties that would reduce it, but I don't think they would.

[ProfD]

4 hours ago, Pioneer1 said:

UBI is a deception.

It's going to be a way to grab and maintain more control over the population.

It may work if they absolutely guarantee the income with no deductions or penalties that would reduce it, but I don't think they would.

There may be strings attached to the UBI. 

 

Otherwise, I think UBI will be glorified welfare similar to the stimulus checks that were handed out during the pandemic.

[richardmurray]

@ProfD

5 hours ago, ProfD said:

Seems it would be easier to lower the cost of everything but of course wealthy folks and shareholders aren't interested in losing money for rhe greater good of humanity.

well, the problem is the global marketplace. Remember, the resources of wealthy countries is intertwined, no government today that is militaristically powerful has a totally internal marketplace. so, making the cost of things low will require an alignment that militaristically can't exist at the moment. 

 

@Pioneer1

5 hours ago, Pioneer1 said:

It may work if they absolutely guarantee the income with no deductions or penalties that would reduce it, but I don't think they would.

your correct, all systems can be abused, remember the first lotto in the usa was in new york state and it was sold to the voters as a way to help schools but that is not where that money goes so... can universal basic income be abused? yes . will each of the fifty states in the usa utilize universal basic income the same? no. And like health insurance/pension plans it will be a state by state variance that will financially be important to mention. 

 

@ProfD

52 minutes ago, ProfD said:

Otherwise, I think UBI will be glorified welfare similar to the stimulus checks that were handed out during the pandemic.

universal basic income is welfare, it is socialism, it is stimulus checks, those three truths is why it has detractors who support fiscal capitalism rigidly as a system or those who have this idea of the merit of labor in fiscal capitalism, which opposes revenue earned absent labor wage or market trade. This is why I mentioned the usa debt and the connection to military power side universal basic income. In fiscal capitalism, giving money absent a market action means debt increase so it will be an annual increase. But again, it has to happen cause the labor market, globally,  no longer has the quantity of jobs to support the idea of the labor market being opportune enough to support the human populace as a whole or in one government. I argue, from a usa perspective, the first blow was the end of enslavement in the usa, as absent enslavement plus the an ever largening policy of immigration you create a populace with labor needs that can't be sustained. The first part of the second blow was the exodus of jobs in the usa starting in the 1950s. When the usa started allowing jobs in the usa to exist outside the usa, it harmed the domestic labor market extremely. The goal was to offer carrots to governments absent any labor market during the war between the usa + ussr, and it succeeded in regaling more governments, but it was harmful domestically, and the action by getting the japanese to give japanese auto jobs to usa citizens wasn't enough of an offsetter. The second part of the second blow came alongside the first part and that was the mass ownership of farms. yes, mass ownership of farms allowed for controlled food production to generate food for the ever growing populace, aside price control for produce. But, it also killed the one place that allows in fiscal capitalism a labor intensive affordable place for the masses and that is the individual farm, the family farm. Urban life can not offer the labor opportunity for expanding populaces like farms.  The attempt with franchises hasn't worked and wasn't going to. The house on a farm can be upkept by wood from the trees on the farm. You can pay a person through food they help make and a room if you own the farm. Urban life doesn't yield to that.  The third blow was the fiat currency, this allowed the usa to make money for its own purposes which served to free the usa from obtaining mineral wealth through violent means to maintain its advantage in the usa+ussr war, but the usa didn't use the  financial power to finance infrastructure, schools, small business while using it to support failed large industries or businesses, the airline industry/the automotive industry/the weapons makers/ the internet firms later on/ the real estate industry later on/ the banking industry later on , all saved by the fiat currency. Which has never been used for infrastructure effectively, add on the end of benchmarks later and less use of the fiat currency to build up locally. So.. the usa has financially guided itself to a situation where it needs socialism/expanded welfare/stimulus checks to maintain its financial balance. financial mismanagement 

[ProfD]

1 hour ago, richardmurray said:

...all saved by the fiat currency. 

Fiat currency keeps humans from having to barter for products, goods and services.

 

Also, in the absence of being able to produce and bring goods to the market, most humans have to exchange labor for currency.

 

1 hour ago, richardmurray said:

So.. the usa has financially guided itself to a situation where it needs socialism/expanded welfare/stimulus checks to maintain its financial balance. financial mismanagement 

Back in 2007 or so, former POTUS George Bush admitted the whole financial system is built on a house of cards. 

 

The world could do away with money at any time.  It's would be harder to maintain order and control over resources and people.

[Pioneer1]

ProfD

 

 

There may be strings attached to the UBI. 

 

There almost certainly will be.

 

 

 

 

 

richardmurray

 

your correct, all systems can be abused, remember the first lotto in the usa was in new york state and it was sold to the voters as a way to help schools but that is not where that money goes so...

 

It's the same thing in Michigan.
They told us the money would be going to help the schools, but most of the public schools are more defunded and fucked up now than they were in the 70s.

 

 

 can universal basic income be abused? yes . will each of the fifty states in the usa utilize universal basic income the same? no. And like health insurance/pension plans it will be a state by state variance that will financially be important to mention. 

 

The problem with the "state by state" plan is it will encourage a lot of destabilization and moving around as people will move from one state to the next seeking better benefits.

If Colorado is offering a UBI of $2,500 a month and Texas is offering only $1,500...what's to stop poor people from packing up and moving up to the Rocky mountains?
 

[richardmurray]

@ProfD

10 hours ago, ProfD said:

Fiat currency keeps humans from having to barter for products, goods and services.

in south america/africa/asia people are bartering alot, when you said humans you meant citizens/residents of the usa right?  I hope so

10 hours ago, ProfD said:

Also, in the absence of being able to produce and bring goods to the market, most humans have to exchange labor for currency.

i think those who are tricked out o their funds in the universal basic income will potentially be the labor class you speak

11 hours ago, ProfD said:

The world could do away with money at any time.  It's would be harder to maintain order and control over resources and people.

thus by your own words humanity can't do away with money , if human organization becomes impossible

 

@Pioneer1

of course because all systems can be abused to gain profits, remember genocide is first, slavery is second , those two are the first two elements of the usa, and what do they teach? take advantage to others no matter what. so financially that means extort wealth no matter what, an unwritten law.

6 hours ago, Pioneer1 said:

If Colorado is offering a UBI of $2,500 a month and Texas is offering only $1,500...what's to stop poor people from packing up and moving up to the Rocky mountains?

excellent question. it will be state laws, remember the usa has a long history of state laws varying widely and an issue like this will be state law. Colorado can make a law for to adjust the universal basic income based on time spent in colorado or which state someone is coming from, this is who abortion works now. It may seem messy but you may not know but the usa was like this for alot of its history. The federal age, if you will from the late 1800s to 2000 wasn't how the usa usually operated state to state. 

[ProfD]

7 hours ago, richardmurray said:

in south america/africa/asia people are bartering alot, when you said humans you meant citizens/residents of the usa right?  I hope so

 

thus by your own words humanity can't do away with money , if human organization becomes impossible

Humans=people which are folks, citizens, residents, men, women, children, etc.

 

Some people still use the barter system.  All developed countries have some form of paper currency too.

 

It's hard to book a plane flight with bag filled with sugar, spices, salt, oil and nuts.

[richardmurray]

@ProfD

4 hours ago, ProfD said:

Humans=people which are folks, citizens, residents, men, women, children, etc.

The usa is the only government in modernity with a fiat currrency and it only works by a militaristic power. How can that be applied to all?

[Pioneer1]

richardmurray

 

The federal age, if you will from the late 1800s to 2000 wasn't how the usa usually operated state to state. 

 

I find it interesting that you said the period from the late 1800s to 2000 was the "Federal Age".
 

I find it interesting because it appears that we share similar observations on how the States seem to have acquired more sovereignty and control since 2000 co-inciding with the George W. Bush Administration.

One could even argue for pushing the date of the end of the "Federal Age" BACK, to about 1980 when Reagan became President granting the States more power.

 

[ProfD]

3 hours ago, richardmurray said:

The usa is the only government in modernity with a fiat currrency and it only works by a militaristic power. How can that be applied to all?

The British pound, Indian rupee and euro are considered fiat currency too.

 

Every country in the G20 can agree on a fiat currency and apply it to other countries too.

[richardmurray]

@Pioneer1 

Don't tease a lover of history with such questions:) I will be up all night thinking on it:) 

When you look at what reagan did with welfare which was basically allow different states to treat it differently, such that in the mostly white states, a wisconsin, an idaho, an arkansas, white people whose work ethic is far worse than any black person in california/new york/georgia treat welfare like a right and it comes like a right to them while in new york/california/georgia, whites+financially positive blacks knock down black people on welfare as inadequate or lazy and try to deny them welfare. 

And every law from welfare to work under clinton to the affordable care act under obama to the abortion situation with schrumpft/biden is a state by state issue, that too many people treat as one. 

Yeah I can definitely see seeds in the 1980s, which even coincides to the fiat currency started in the 1970s and OPEC changing the oil/energy  situation

@ProfD

shame on me, the euro alone is fiat. You are correct that barring military reality, the governments can use the fiat currency model and define a global financial balance. But, is china going to do this with the usa? is russia going to do this with the european union? is India going to do this with fellow nuclear power and public rival pakistan? I can go on and on. I will even piggy back on the dialog between me and pioneer and add, in the usa itself, the financial binds of the states are loosening. Yes,  the usa federal military is absolute in the usa, but the kind of inter governmental cooperation needed for that I see becoming less and less possible. Look at New York state side NEw JErsey with the congestion pricing.  I am not saying you are wrong Profd. I am saying the governments in humanity and even their subdivisions [scotland in the uk, hong kong in china] are showing a greater and greater dislike for the bureaucratic harmony that aligning the fiat currencies as you suggest will require to be effective . The wealthy in each government in humanity like the fiat to support themselves but to readjust for the 99% in each government will require changes the one percent in each government seem less and less interested in. And fiscal poor folk don't have the will, desire, gusto or the arms to force anything on their end. 

[ProfD]

2 hours ago, richardmurray said:

shame on me, the euro alone is fiat. You are correct that barring military reality, the governments can use the fiat currency model and define a global financial balance. But, is china going to do this with the usa? is russia going to do this with the european union? is India going to do this with fellow nuclear power and public rival pakistan?

No shame.  It's all good.  Just dialog.

 

The super power countries already have agreements among themselves for how they carve up the rest of the globe financially. 

 

Everything in the US seems to be made in China. 

 

Russians are walking around wearing Levi's jeans.

 

All of the saber-rattling with regard to military prowess is the equivalent of those Fast & Furious movies.

 

It's really a flex to keep the lesser countries in line.

 

 

2 hours ago, richardmurray said:

The wealthy in each government in humanity like the fiat to support themselves...

As long as a handful of people in every country can enjoy being wealthy, their leadership can get the masses to go along with the program. 

 

As I mentioned in another thread, Vladimir Putin has 144 million people in check.  The people haven't risen against him.

 

Here in the US, poor and middle class people vote for people wealthier than themselves. 

 

Nowhere on the planet are the lower classes of people fighting for the redistribution of wealth.

[richardmurray]

@ProfD

19 minutes ago, ProfD said:

Everything in the US seems to be made in China. 

except the weapons

19 minutes ago, ProfD said:

It's really a flex to keep the lesser countries in line.

yeah, the cold war proxy war between powers still exists but it isn't a flex for show. Every redefining war in humanity had people who said all the powerful are part of some one world government -esque arrangement  until the war hit and then the reality of the wealthy is clear to see. And the reason is simple, sooner or later, someone in the rich zone wants more than the arrangement and once you do , only one way exist to get it.

29 minutes ago, ProfD said:

As I mentioned in another thread, Vladimir Putin has 144 million people in check.  The people haven't risen against him.

Ahh the people of russia are in denial, like the people in india, like the people in the usa , as in brasil. 

One of the most unfortunate influences of the usa on humanity is populaces inability to be honest to themselves. 

all the peoples in the usa lie to themselves and the usa likes other populaces to do the same. 

The people of russia are imperialist, who have spent over a century trying to be western european voters in appearance and that lie is what stops them. 

The russians have watched western europe for a long time, elected government: france/england/usa/brasil none of these governments show a good example of elected government. each of them have historically disenfrachised populaces that the many peoples of russia realize will be them. Risen up against putin for what? for the usa model ? You would tell them redistribute wealth but which group in russia will gain the most in the redistribution? You wouldn't offer an answer and so, stay the course. 

 

[ProfD]

 

5 hours ago, richardmurray said:

yeah, the cold war proxy war between powers still exists but it isn't a flex for show. Every redefining war in humanity... And the reason is simple, sooner or later, someone in the rich zone wants more than the arrangement...

Right. The United Nations, G20 and G8 exist to prevent world war and maintain those arrangements.

 

5 hours ago, richardmurray said:

Ahh the people of russia are in denial...

One billion Chinese people aren't rushing to overthrow their dictator either.

 

5 hours ago, richardmurray said:

each of them have historically disenfrachised populaces that the many peoples of russia realize will be them. Risen up against putin for what? for the usa model ? You would tell them redistribute wealth but which group in russia will gain the most in the redistribution? 

My point is despite having different ethnic groups within the country, the population seems to be content with their strong-man and no desire to change distribution of wealth.

[richardmurray]

@ProfD

38 minutes ago, ProfD said:

The United Nations, G20 and G8 exist to prevent world war and maintain those arrangements.

yes but i have a lesser view of those organizations potency than you. The BRIC- brazil russia india china wouldn't exist if the usa backed organizations were as potent as you suggest, or I think you suggest.

40 minutes ago, ProfD said:

One billion Chinese people aren't rushing to overthrow their dictator either.

china hasn't had a dictator since chiang ki shek, the presidents of china are elected. It isn't a usa system or a western european system, but china's leaders are elected. The one key similarity to the western european system is china doesn't have term limits either. So when the next chinese congress convenes in 2028 , we will see if Xi Jinping can win it again. He will have work to do. the chinese communist party may look like one whole party but i argue it is like the donkeys/elephants/third parties/joint chiefs of staff all wrapped up into one, the chinese constitution doesn't allow for multiple parties but it does allow for factions in one party, and that is how it works. These factions don't have official names cause they are fluid, they can easily change over time based on the inner activities of the members. In the same way the factions in the donkeys or elephants change over time: the squad,or the tea party . China doesn't have a dictator, that is a media lie from the usa/western europe. And I will defend the chinese system again going back multiracial large populace countries. The reason why mao liked one party is he comprehended that china historically is very multiracially internally. many people outside china may think of china as one peoples but they are not historically. so one party serves to unite in government administration a country of over a billion people. And the chinese communist party isn't a dictator it is the reason why china is the second most powerful government in humanity, why it no longer is an english opium den, why it is better than its geographic peers: russia/india/japan/korea/taiwan who represent collectively various different ways. Which i can go into, but I will not:) Remember the chinese government feeds all of its people, a hell of a lot larger populace than the usa. I don't see why any chinese would be looking to overthrow the chinese communist party, they have put and maintain china on a positive arch. 

1 hour ago, ProfD said:

My point is despite having different ethnic groups within the country, the population seems to be content with their strong-man and no desire to change distribution of wealth.

See this is the thing. In the soviet era, the soviet government by its own law, was obliged to take care of all people equally so what few may know is that for all the struggles, the soviet union tried to support all the citizens as equals. The real reason why the soviets failed was because of their very expensive arms race with the usa. The soviets were better scientist than the usa but an arms race against a fiscal capitalistic country is foolish. But the soviets exhausted themselves and it was from that moment to putin that you see the truth Profd. Between the fall of the soviets to putin what happened? 

The USA as the victor of the cold war, pushed all the fiscal capitalistic russians, the oligarchs, in my mind the descendents of whites or czarists into russia and it worked out for the usa. Russia in that time gave up a lot of technology, the natural resources of russia were being milked by usa/western europe. but in russia the people were wondering where the social services were. No one told them that texas in the usa/missisippi in the usa don't have social services like new york or california. So the oligarchs came in, lived in golden palaces and showed the russian people first hand what fiscal capitalism absent enslavement is at its most crude/raw/negative. Just a lot of greed. so Putin comes in and basically creates the modern russian government. the oligarchs could had did far better but as usual with these statinphiles in countries outside the usa, they live in london/new york city and talk about they want better for the country of their bloodline but when they get a chance, ala iraq/afghanistan/libya/and it will be the same with syria, they show themselves to be pure fiscal capitalists in the usa way with no plans or desires to make the country they were not raised in anything but a cash grab for themselves. 

MY point being the strong man brought organization to russia, the oligarchs brought chaos. And the oligarchs weren't one person, they were a group, distributing wealth amongst themselves. So convincing the russian people of distribution wealth change will take more than words, it will take actions. 

I don't know if you comprehend my point. 

I comprehend for you, distribution of wealth change is or can be at best the equalizer or at least the universal standard of living improvement needed in humanity or in humanities parts for betterment. And I see logic in your thinking. But, the one element your position needs is someone to lead by example. The chinese communist party does it. Most people in china want no war, and the chinese communist party isn't starting one, the issue in the south china sea isn't about war but china's growth, the reality is, china has grown too big to be the usa's bitch militaristically and the usa government has been unwilling to let russia have parts of eastern europe or china have parts of south east asia... I don't know what schrumpt will do, he seems to be willing to let them have those parts which is something we will see soon enough if true or not... The western european countries have all these riots because FDR made western europe have a high level of social security, and the recent governments have mismanaged funds which threatens the social safety net, the distribution of wealth in western european countries... The people of nippon/japan have a high level of internal peace cause they have a system of distribution of wealth + no sharing of wealth to the outside, ala immigrant entry which maintains a quality, but they don't have a military either. Their biggest problem is the man's man culture in japan has to end, the japanese woman is leading in many sectors of their community but the men blockade higher positions and that is the battle... but russia's problem is distribution of wealth has tended to be violent/bloody/ and not functional. So Russians need someone russians in or out of russia to lead by example, but none do so .... that exposes the truth of russian people. 

As I say about the black elephants in the usa, the black republican party members, from the 1960s onward, they always complain that black people don't spend money right, while boasting about their businesses. But they never show an example of this quality. To restate, a bunch of black business owners complain about fiscal impropriety in the black populace in the usa but never have an example within their own tribe of collective better business. The russians need the same, they need someone russian to lead by example, don't talk the talk, walk the walk. 

[ProfD]

2 hours ago, richardmurray said:

china hasn't had a dictator since chiang ki shek, the presidents of china are elected. 

 

China doesn't have a dictator, that is a media lie from the usa/western europe. And I will defend the chinese system again going back multiracial large populace countries.

 

...so one party serves to unite in government administration a country of over a billion people. And the chinese communist party isn't a dictator it is the reason why china is the second most powerful government in humanity...

 

Remember the chinese government feeds all of its people, a hell of a lot larger populace than the usa. I don't see why any chinese would be looking to overthrow the chinese communist party, they have put and maintain china on a positive arch. 

You're correct on all accounts.  I know Xi Jinping is elected.  Same goes for Vladimir Putin.

 

I still call them dictator/strong-men because of how they maintain power. 

 

On the negative side, these men will literally any type of opposition killed. 

 

On the positive side, these men do take care of their country.

 

Your statement I bolded above is the point I was making about why these countries are 1) content with their leadership and 2) accept the status quo without needing to redistribute wealth.

 

2 hours ago, richardmurray said:

MY point being the strong man brought organization to russia, the oligarchs brought chaos. And the oligarchs weren't one person, they were a group, distributing wealth amongst themselves. So convincing the russian people of distribution wealth change will take more than words, it will take actions.

Right.  The strong-man controls the oligarchs which funnels down like a pyramid.

 

2 hours ago, richardmurray said:

I don't know if you comprehend my point. 

I comprehend for you, distribution of wealth change is or can be at best the equalizer or at least the universal standard of living improvement needed in humanity or in humanities parts for betterment.

I comprehend your point. 

 

There is no need to redistribute wealth as long as the basic needs of the populace are met.  The UBI is a step in that direction.

 

2 hours ago, richardmurray said:

And I see logic in your thinking. But, the one element your position needs is someone to lead by example. The chinese communist party does it.

 

...the reality is, china has grown too big to be the usa's bitch militaristically...

 

To restate, a bunch of black business owners complain about fiscal impropriety in the black populace in the usa but never have an example within their own tribe of collective better business.

 

The russians need the same, they need someone russian to lead by example, don't talk the talk, walk the walk. 

You're right.  Effective leadership is the key to insuring the basic needs of a populace are met. 

 

The US is built on a system that prevents it from taking care of every citizen in the same way that other countries do.

 

The main thing is that in countries like China and Russia, despite differences in ethnicity or class, the populace sees themselves as one people i.e. homogenous.

[richardmurray]

@ProfD

6 hours ago, ProfD said:

You're correct on all accounts.  I know Xi Jinping is elected.  Same goes for Vladimir Putin.

 

I still call them dictator/strong-men because of how they maintain power. 

 

On the negative side, these men will literally any type of opposition killed. 

 

On the positive side, these men do take care of their country.

 

Your statement I bolded above is the point I was making about why these countries are 1) content with their leadership and 2) accept the status quo without needing to redistribute wealth.

Did you call the previous president of china,I think deng xiaopeng, a dictator? If Xi loses the next election in 2028 will you call the following president of china a dictator?

 I haven't heard of president xi killing anyone personally or imprisoning opposition. And I think Xi is doing great for china. china is a leader in many industries, can defend itself. overall in Xi's tenure china has done well. 

Now putin, i concur that he has used his position to manipulate the russian government, attacked opponents. 

And I don't think Putin has taken care of russia in the second half of his tenure. 

His problem is he wants russia to stand with usa+ china but russia lost the cold war and as we black DOSers know better than most, losing wars while being alive comes at a cost that can't be undone so easily. 

Putin needs to redefine russia, end the cycle it was on since peter the great.

8 hours ago, ProfD said:

There is no need to redistribute wealth as long as the basic needs of the populace are met.  The UBI is a step in that direction.

I never read that from you before. 

8 hours ago, ProfD said:

The main thing is that in countries like China and Russia, despite differences in ethnicity or class, the populace sees themselves as one people i.e. homogenous.

well, it hasn't been easy, but i think mao's desire to get the people of china to be one has not got them all: the ugyars, the taiwanese, the people of hong kong are not exactly embraced by the others but china is doing better than russia or the usa I argue on that on that regard. The  Cossacks/checyens/ukranians are part of russia but are not embraced by the descendents of the rus. 

[ProfD]

1 minute ago, richardmurray said:

@ProfD

Did you call the previous president of china,I think deng xiaopeng, a dictator? If Xi loses the next election in 2028 will you call the following president of china a dictator?

Stay focused and lighten up bro.  I call them dictators half-jokingly.

 

1 minute ago, richardmurray said:

 And I think Xi is doing great for china. china is a leader in many industries, can defend itself. overall in Xi's tenure china has done well. 

Agreed.  I think a benevolent dictatorship is functional especially when the populace accepts it.

1 minute ago, richardmurray said:

...ugyars, the taiwanese, the people of hong kong are not exactly embraced...

 

The  Cossacks/checyens/ukranians are part of russia but are not embraced by the descendents of the rus. 

That's why I mentioned ethnic differences not keeping the populace from seeing themselves as one people.  

 

In other words, the marginalized of those ethnic groups do not appear to be joining forces and looking to overthrow their benevolent dictators, er, elected leaders.

[richardmurray]

@ProfD

even enough we will see what happens

[ProfD]

4 minutes ago, richardmurray said:

@ProfD

even enough we will see what happens

Do not be surprised if the incoming POTUS-elect pulls more people to the right with his agenda.  He admires leaders like Putin, Jinping and Erdogan (Turkey).  The US could be heading back to the 1980s in that regard.

[richardmurray]

@ProfD

Yes Scrumpft admires them but he is not them. 

None of those men ever went bankrupt and some of them climbed up the financial ladder from fiscally poor beaches. 

I argue what schrumpt talks about delivering is a form of 1800 usa isolationism while the usa is still the global policeman. I sense in that environment a regionalism which gives space to russia/china/eu/ brasil to grow in their regions while still maintain the global bureaucracy the usa is at the center of 

 

 

[ProfD]

33 minutes ago, richardmurray said:

Yes Scrumpft admires them but he is not them. 

I argue what schrumpt talks about delivering is a form of 1800 usa isolationism while the usa is still the global policeman.

Sure.  He doesn't have the pedigree of those leaders. But, many white folks especially would be perfectly fine if he could roll America back a couple hundred years.  They don't believe they'll *lose* anything.

[richardmurray]

@ProfD

yes, this is what happens when a populace in power never wanted what happened in their near past, and don't see any betterment to themselves with what did happen