USA Politics

[Onhell]

The $1K is not really intended to be UBI .. it is to float people temporarily (think there will be 2 checks .. so $2K). I agree, there should be some means testing . My main thought is it just replaces welfare with somewhat similar income thresholds

Well, the one that is being proposed NOW is only meant to help people float by. BUT Yang was proposing a UBI of 1k/month and then admitted it would end up replacing a number of social programs. 2k a month is far more useful. 1k barely covers rent and utilities for a 2bedroom apartment. In Tucson I was paying $750 in rent for a 2 bedroom and that was "affordable." My one bedroom was $500, 650 with services included.

 

[bearfan]

Well, the one that is being proposed NOW is only meant to help people float by. BUT Yang was proposing a UBI of 1k/month and then admitted it would end up replacing a number of social programs. 2k a month is far more useful. 1k barely covers rent and utilities for a 2bedroom apartment. In Tucson I was paying $750 in rent for a 2 bedroom and that was "affordable." My one bedroom was $500, 650 with services included.

Yeah, I am not sure what the number should be and it should be different based on location. I think the general concept is sound

 

[Onhell]

Agreed. here is a great Ted Talk about why it will become more relevant in the near future:

 

[The Flash]

Of course they do that ... you qualify for 'x program .. here is a debit card or something, but you can only use it on food. Here is a housing voucher, you can only use it on housing. Here is a a child care deduction, only use it for child care .. and on and on and on. There is tons of overhead with that at various levels of government. I would much rather say here is some chunk of money .. do what you want with it, hopefully something wise ..but up to the individual.

I misinterpreted your comment, then, because I agree with you on those fronts. I was talking about programs like universal healthcare.

 

[Perun]

I don't understand the sentiment. What system do you have in mind?

Yeah, that's the problem. I get that response whenever I bring up this thought. We have lost the ability to imagine that there could be an economy that is not focused on production and that there could be another way of life than materialism. That's why I reject Communism as much as I reject Capitalism.

 

[The Flash]

Yes, but the 1000 a month he proposed wasn't enough to replace the numerous benefits some people were on. It didn't account for state either. 1,000 in Cali or NY is nothing, but in AZ, NV, NM or TX it goes a longer way. It would have to be adjusted by state and by income at least in that there should be a max threshhold to cap it. I don't agree with the U in UBI. Bill Gates doesn't need 1,000 a month, nor does Warren Buffet or the Waltons, etc. So what should it be? 30K a year? 40?

I doubt the likes of Gates or Buffett would collect their UBI anyway. They already spend a ton of money on charitable activities.

 

[Onhell]

Yeah, that's the problem. I get that response whenever I bring up this thought. We have lost the ability to imagine that there could be an economy that is not focused on production and that there could be another way of life than materialism. That's why I reject Communism as much as I reject Capitalism.

It isn't easy. Capitalism sucks, but it's the best thing we've come up with so far. Communism is horrible, but not until now have we been forced to think of things differently.

Marx was right about several things. Starting with we NEED to work. It is part of our human condition, we like being productive and making things. He was also right that, not so much capitalism, but the division of labor, alienated the worker from his product, this alienation led to the "working for the weekend" mentality and a "loss" in our humanity. Add to that that we are not seen as people, but as consumers (see Bush's speech post 9/11) and well.... What is there to really do?

Have you thought of actual alternatives? Eat the rich seems to be rather popular these days.

 

[The Flash]

Yeah, that's the problem. I get that response whenever I bring up this thought. We have lost the ability to imagine that there could be an economy that is not focused on production and that there could be another way of life than materialism. That's why I reject Communism as much as I reject Capitalism.

No, I don't think so. I think the problem with your sentiment is "focus on production". There's no system of human living that's not focused on production, production is what generates the wealth that sustains human populations. It's just that the type and means of production changes.

I can just about gather what you mean, and if I'm right, it's not an inability of imagination on my part, I can very well imagine a foraging/horticulture society with a gift economy, for example. I've read up on pre-historic cultures a decent amount, so it's nothing I'm unfamiliar with.

 

[bearfan]

It isn't easy. Capitalism sucks, but it's the best thing we've come up with so far. Communism is horrible, but not until now have we been forced to think of things differently.

Marx was right about several things. Starting with we NEED to work. It is part of our human condition, we like being productive and making things. He was also right that, not so much capitalism, but the division of labor, alienated the worker from his product, this alienation led to the "working for the weekend" mentality and a "loss" in our humanity. Add to that that we are not seen as people, but as consumers (see Bush's speech post 9/11) and well.... What is there to really do?

Have you thought of actual alternatives? Eat the rich seems to be rather popular these days.

Nothing wrong with striving for higher goals ... but I think the fundamental reality is that specialization is efficient and without it we would not be here (on this board or the internet) without out .. because without division of labor we would be struggling to feed ourselves and meet basic needs. That sounds like a pretty miserable life.

 

[Onhell]

No, I don't think so. I think the problem with your sentiment is "focus on production". There's no system of human living that's not focused on production, production is what generates the wealth that sustains human populations. It's just that the type and means of production changes.

I can just about gather what you mean, and if I'm right, it's not an inability of imagination on my part, I can very well imagine a foraging/horticulture society with a gift economy, for example. I've read up on pre-historic cultures a decent amount, so it's nothing I'm unfamiliar with.

I friend of mine told me a while back there is a good likelyhood that we'll go back to that. Current nation states will crumble into smaller regional/local factions and while not necessarily a return to hunting/gathering, simply smaller scale farms and herds and the like. What do you think?

 

[bearfan]

I friend of mine told me a while back there is a good likelyhood that we'll go back to that. Current nation states will crumble into smaller regional/local factions and while not necessarily a return to hunting/gathering, simply smaller scale farms and herds and the like. What do you think?

I don't see it ... I would like more local governance ... but if I look outside my window, there is a small farm/ranch right behind us and I can state for a fact I would be miserable if I had to be out in in (it is nice to look at) and from my brief interactions with the owner, he would be miserable as hell doing what I do ... I just do not see people moving into essentially large communes.

 

[Perun]

There have been societies built on the idea that labour for production is to be avoided. Ancient Greece and Rome, for instance - not exactly societies known for their lack of historical achievement. The output they aimed for was not material production, but the growth of human civilisation. The problem at the time was that production for sustenance was not to be achieved without manual labour, so they relied to a great extent on the existence of large lower classes and slavery. The ideal was only a reality for the upper class. We could achieve the ideal for everyone without enslaving a single person today if we were to have machines do all the necessary work. But we won't, because this is unthinkable in an economy designed for material profit; nobody would be so stupid to get the gears working, because "what's in it for them?"

 

[Onhell]

Cheaper labor costs?

 

[The Flash]

I friend of mine told me a while back there is a good likelyhood that we'll go back to that. Current nation states will crumble into smaller regional/local factions and while not necessarily a return to hunting/gathering, simply smaller scale farms and herds and the like. What do you think?

That's actually not too far from my "ideal" society, whatever that means. Integrated network of developed small towns, the type you encounter in Switzerland, Austria and Scandinavia. I do think such an environment is better for human well-being and flourishing compared to overdeveloped urban life. I don't romanticize the village though, and I'm not talking about a village. More of a halfway between village-small town environment with industrialized urban environment.

 

[LooseCannon]

We could achieve the ideal for everyone without enslaving a single person today if we were to have machines do all the necessary work. But we won't, because this is unthinkable in an economy designed for material profit; nobody would be so stupid to get the gears working, because "what's in it for them?"

Oh, you mean the United Federation of Planets.

 

[Perun]

Oh, you mean the United Federation of Planets.

Hey, Star Trek developed one of the better utopias out there, and I'm not denying it had a great influence on my thinking.

 

[Onhell]

That's actually not too far from my "ideal" society, whatever that means. Integrated network of developed small towns, the type you encounter in Switzerland, Austria and Scandinavia. I do think such an environment is better for human well-being and flourishing compared to overdeveloped urban life. I don't romanticize the village though, and I'm not talking about a village. More of a halfway between village-small town environment with industrialized urban environment.

I'd be happy in a cabin in the woods as long as it had indoor plumbing and electricity lol. The plumbing is logistically difficult, but there are other ways of securing clean water.

 

[Mosh]

What Perun is talking about is not only a better society, but an inevitable reality of an automated society. At some point, we have to move beyond material profit and productive based thinking because that kind of work will not exist anymore.

 

[Mosh]

From Corona thread

I mean that's a bare minimum. He's going to be the reason thousands and thousands of Americans die.

I have been thinking about the various scenarios for how the election plays out after coronavirus. This is a Hurricane Katrina magnitude fuck up by the Trump admin, but it’s even worse because it is affecting every state. That combined with a financial crisis that will make 2008 look like a cakewalk suggests Trump would lose reelection. Katrina was a major factor in republicans losing the 2006 midterms and the economy contributed heavily to Obama’s landslide victory in 2008.

With that said, I’m not sure if it’s that simple. The conventional wisdom suggests that the perception of a good economy is the only thing keeping Trump in office. However, if some of the proposed bailout programs go through, namely the direct cash payments to Americans, that can easily give the perception that Trump is doing his best to handle the crisis and help his re-election. If the country is also able to weather the coronavirus and quickly set on a course of recovery, that will also help his re-election. So while the situation has been severely mishandled so far, there are a lot of ways in which Trump can save his public perception. Just the other day I read an article saying Americans were slightly more approving of his handling compared to a few weeks earlier.

To make matters more complicated, weathering coronavirus might not even be his only ticket to reelection. Americans historically don’t like to change governments during a war. While coronavirus isn’t a war, some of the same logic might still be in play. If the country feels united in beating coronavirus and the economic/social fallout, it will be hard for democrats to shore up enthusiasm among independents against Trump. This is something Dems struggled with in 2004, when it wasn’t entirely clear to everyone that the two wars Bush started were a massive mistake (running a mild moderate probably didn’t help here). There is a lot of fear and uncertainty here, which makes it hard for me to see Americans being enthusiastic about overhauling the current government.

The rhetoric around coronavirus as a foreign threat could similarly be an advantage. Calling it “Chinese virus” is not a mistake and you should expect this term to be used on a (virtual?) debate stage with Joe Biden. Trump can point to the pandemic as an argument against globalism and rally the country around a tangible foreign threat. Suddenly the tough on China stance becomes more popular.

So there’s a lot giving Trump the advantage here, although there’s a lot against him too. For one, it’s very possible I’ve miscalculated the public response to any of these things. Overall, I think the biggest advantage to Trump right now is that nobody really cares about politics currently. Coverage of the primaries dramatically lowered and any given news station is covering corona. It’s going to be really hard for Biden to campaign in this environment, especially when Trump has the voice of the White House to de facto campaign. Of course things continue to change at a rapid pace, so we’ll see what happens.

 

[LooseCannon]

Honestly, I don't think we'll know what happens until thousands of people start dropping dead, specifically older people. How many people will be blaming Trump for the loss of their grandmother in November?

Florida is going to be a graveyard.