Universal basic income

#164

Another great interview with Andrew + one funny screenshot from the video :smiley:

1 Like
#165

Looks like the whole book in on YouTube:

3 Likes
#166

UBI isn’t Communism. Last I checked, not one communistic country has it.

2 Likes
#167

“EOS Universal Basic Income - Free Money For Everyone”

:thinking:

2 Likes
#168
2 Likes
#169

Libertarian historian Tom Woods interviews commentator Antony Sammeroff about the shortcomings of UBI. They both address concerns about common narratives about benefits of UBI. This was an illuminating and honest look of this issue.

4 Likes
#170
1 Like
#171

https://www.bloomberg.com/features/2019-bmw-electric-car-german-engines/?srnd=hyperdrive/

A great article that illustrates how technology is shaking up the auto industry. The common argument that new tech will create more higher tech jobs is clearly inaccurate. It takes far less labor, parts and employees to create an electric vehicle than it does a combustion engine vehicle. BMW and pretty much every auto manufacturer will be laying off machinists, engineers etc… in the coming years in massive numbers.

That’s without considering all the jobs self driving cars will obliterate.

1 Like
#172

But but but, this time it is different.

1 Like
#173
1 Like
#174
1 Like
#175

The Mises Institute is a great source for someone who always points out bias of sources:

https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Ludwig_von_Mises_Institute

The Ludwig von Mises Institute is an American think tank (tax-exempt!) specializing in Austrian school economics and political philosophy. It was established in 1982 with the approval of Margit von Mises, the widow of the Austrian school economist Ludwig von Mises. They have published many journals on political economy, economics, and philosophy, working from multiple angles to combine racism with wealth worship and empirical science denial.

Econ majors will be pleased to know that LvMI offers fellowships, plus awards to those who have made (in their opinion) exceptional contributions in the field of economics. They offer an array of summer camp-style “seminars” where the future leaders of tomorrow can learn how to get laughed out of the boardroom take advantage of other suckers by saying “prax” a lot.

Baron Von Mises (Austrian economist who invented praxxing), Baron Von Hayek (Nobel-winning economist), and Kaiser Von Habsburg (would-be emperor) all knew each other and were Austrian Nobility at one point or another. They all hated FDR for refusing their requests to use American power to reinstate the Austrian nobility/monarchy after WWII.[2][3][4] They put this institute to work combating his ideas,[5] placing it in the deep south to win over disillusioned racists to libertarianism, but also to inspire a new right-libertarianism.[6]

(1) http://www.salon.com/2011/05/11/republicans_and_ludwig_von_mises/

(4) https://www.researchgate.net/publication/255699075_War_and_the_Austrian_School_Ludwig_von_Mises_and_FA_Hayek

(5) https://zcomm.org/zmagazine/von-mises-rises-from-the-scrap-heap-of-history-by-chip-berlet/

(6) # NULLIFICATION, NEO-CONFEDERATES, AND THE REVENGE OF THE OLD RIGHT
https://tinyurl.com/y58eewjl

1 Like
#176

cute. so cute. do you guys call yourselves luddites?

1 Like
#177

Sharp comeback my man,sharp

1 Like
#178

Well calling Mises Neo-conferate just shows your complete ignorance. Luddite.

And the tiring, completely wrong arguments against nullification.

1 Like
#179

You quote from them but do not know much about the background of the institute obviously:

the Mises Institute’s “interest in neo-Confederate themes reflects” their “radical libertarian view of government and economics” and stated aim to “undermine statism in all its forms.”

Among the openly secessionist founders and scholars at the Mises Institute, many of them formed a militant sister organization called the League of the South. At least nine Mises Institute scholars have been active with the League of the South.

Archived versions of the LOS website show that Mises Institute co-founders Lew Rockwell and Murray Rothbard are listed as “charter members” of the League of the South. Other Mises Institute founders that helped found the LOS include Jeffrey Tucker, Thomas Woods, and Clyde Wilson.

The LOS eventually founded the tthe League of the South Institute for “the Study of Southern Culture and History.” It was described as the “educational arm of the Southern independence movement.” The Mises Institute’s Donald Livingston was its first director.

Other current Mises Institute “affiliate scholars” that were LOS Institute “faculty” include: Thomas DiLorenzo, Marshall DeRosa, Thomas Flemming, and Joseph Stromberg.

The Southern Poverty Law Center declared the League of the South to be a hate group in 2000.

As recently as 2009, Mises scholars Clyde Wilson, Thomas DiLorenzo, Marshall DeRosa, and Joseph Stromberg were listed as “Affiliated Scholars” at the League of the South Institute. The Southern Poverty Law Center notes that “many League [of the South] members have taught at the [Mises] institute’s seminars and given presentations at its conferences,” including LOSI faculty like Thomas Fleming.

As a legal entity, the League of the South Institute is “the educational branch of the Mary Noel Kershaw Foundation,” named after the wife of the late Jack Kershaw, longtime leader within the violent White Citizens Council. Kershaw was also a founding board member of the League of the South. In 1998, Kershaw erected a statue of Ku Klux Klan leader Nathan Bedford Forrest, explaining that “somebody needs to say a good word for slavery. Where in the world are the Negroes better off today than in America?”

1 Like
#180

Seen all these completely debunked statements from the hate group SPLC before. It is tiring and nobody at the pub is going to fall for it. How many lawsuits have the SPLC lost in recent years? How many are the currently facing?

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/the-southern-poverty-law-center-has-lost-all-credibility/2018/06/21/22ab7d60-756d-11e8-9780-b1dd6a09b549_story.html

1 Like
#181

Nothing in that post has been debunked,you are trying to poison the well but it’s not going to work this time. Google has lawsuits against it too,guess we better stop using it then,can’t trust it’s findings.

Again

The Mises Institute has direct ties to the League of the South

As recently as 2009, Mises scholars Clyde Wilson, Thomas DiLorenzo, Marshall DeRosa, and Joseph Stromberg were listed as “Affiliated Scholars” at the League of the South Institute.

As a legal entity, the League of the South Institute is “the educational branch of the Mary Noel Kershaw Foundation,” named after the wife of the late Jack Kershaw, longtime leader within the violent White Citizens Council. Kershaw was also a founding board member of the League of the South. In 1998, Kershaw erected a statue of Ku Klux Klan leader Nathan Bedford Forrest, explaining that “somebody needs to say a good word for slavery. Where in the world are the Negroes better off today than in America?”

Not to mention

Archived versions of the LOS website show that Mises Institute co-founders Lew Rockwell and Murray Rothbard are listed as “charter members” of the League of the South. Other Mises Institute founders that helped found the LOS include Jeffrey Tucker, Thomas Woods, and Clyde Wilson.

The LOS eventually founded the tthe League of the South Institute for “the Study of Southern Culture and History.” It was described as the “educational arm of the Southern independence movement.” The Mises Institute’s Donald Livingston was its first director.

https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/League_of_the_South

1 Like
#182

Sorry but Tucker, Woods, Rockwell, and Rothbard are not charter members of the LOS and it has been completely debunked and it is tiring. Nobody falls for the zombie like call of Racism, Neo-confederate bullshit anymore Saul. It is just sad. Can not win on ideas so attack a person’s character, even if you are completely lying about his character.

https://tomwoods.com/whats-the-deal-with-woods-and-the-league-of-the-south/

No rebuttal to either article, just an attack on Mises. Didn’t even bother with the ZeroHedge article because I am sure they are just nazis.

Get ready for this thread to be filled with these fallacies …

1. Technology destroys demand for labor and dooms future generations to economic misery

Yang’s claim that robots and automation are leaving less work for humans and dooming American’s to economic misery is an old and tired line that has existed as long as capital has been accumulated and utilized to make technological breakthroughs. This line of thinking is a continuation of the logic espoused by English Luddites of the 19th century which protested against the substitution of manual labor for employing even the most basic forms of machinery. This is the same line of thinking that leads to protectionist trade policies. After all, a robot or machine isn’t the only form of competition for labor. Free trade, which allows for accessing skills and goods for lower prices globally than can be had domestically was also claimed to be a job killer and economic death sentence. Over the past century, the protectionists have of course been proven wrong as the rise of global trade has led to both domestic and global economic growth resulting in staggering declines in poverty and rising standards of living.

Sure, instead of petitioning to end the use of technology in business Yang and the supporters of UBI are suggesting government handouts via redistribution, but their entire basis for the need for a UBI emerges from this view that Americans are doomed to be displaced by technology and left worthless in the labor market. It seems hard to believe that after witnessing the last two centuries of employing ever more technology in the workplace, and the commensurate rise in objective measures of standards of living over that time, that anyone could even make such a claim in good faith.

Yang invokes the labor force participation rate, which remains below pre-2008 recession levels, and claims this implies we need a UBI because those not in the work force are there due to technological displacement. And while it is true that the labor force participation rate remains marred below financial crisis levels, the 4% decline in labor force participation happened between January 2008 and September 2015 as the US economy entered recession and then languished from the government’s so-called economic remedies. You would have to be a fool (or conniving politician) to suggest that the labor force participation rate, which even as technology progressed was unchanged between 1990 and 2007, suddenly plummeted due to the employment of technology following 2007.

Yang tries to weave statistics into his justification for a UBI, and relies on hysterical “the sky is falling” forecasts of mass unemployment driven by technological advancement in near the future. However, oddly enough, he never mentions the fact that 40% of Americans were employed in agriculture at the turn of the 20th century and by the end of the 20 th century only 1% of the population was employed in the field and yet America rose to economic prominence over the period. Tractors and farm machinery made millions of jobs obsolete, and yet economic catastrophe did not follow. The same can be said for countless other industries. Yes, specific jobs are destroyed by innovation and technology, but this has always been the case and it does not lead to a general decline in the demand for labor. Furthermore, technology has historically displaced the most dangerous, monotonous and grueling tasks - which we should all be thankful for.

2. Maximizing employment as an economic goal rather than maximizing wealth

Yang claims the US needs a VAT to stick it to companies like Amazon who are innovating away the need for labor, so that this tax revenue can be used to fund the UBI and create millions of new jobs. Not only doempirical studies find that the rise of technology throughout history does not lead to a long term rise in unemployment, but this leads us directly to the second fallacy of making maximizing employment the measure of economic success and an economic goal in and of itself. Even if the labor force participation rate was set to decline due to the rise of technology, that isn’t something to necessarily fear. The fallacy arises in part due to the fact that the unemployment rate is discussed as being nearly synonymous with the strength of the economy.

Intuitively we should all know that we do not value work for work’s sake - we value wealth, not jobs per se. If simply employing the most labor and resources, instead of creating wealth is what is to be valued, then we would simply make every process as inefficient and labor intensive as possible. But we don’t. What makes people’s lives more enjoyable, what raises their standard of living, is that which makes food and other key goods and services more abundant. If an abundance of resources can be had with less hours worked surely we would all be in favor. In fact, it is clear by our very actions that we value wealth more than work for works sake.

People who speak alarmingly over the rise of automation and technology displacing human labor must be appalled by the fact that the average number of hours worked by full time workers declined by over 33% over the course of the 20th century as technology was increasingly utilized. After all, if employment of human labor is a good in and of itself, we should want to work more hours rather than less. But of course that’s not the case. At this point, surely the absurdity of such a fixation on maximizing employment is clear. We all want access to goods and services and we all want to expend as little time and energy as possible to attain them. Only masochists would want to labor away to attain things which could be attained with less effort.

The past century of progress in the growth of the material wealth of individuals has proven that the rise of technology allows humans to work less while simultaneously achieving greater degrees of material wellbeing. The employment of technology is not a plague to be feared. Alas, unfortunately we can’t all just set around and do as we please while robots do all of our work quite yet. People need to prepare for a changing economy and to learn new skills as they always have. The best thing we can do to make sure this happens is to get government out of the way of those willing to prepare.

3. Consumer spending is the basis of economic growth

Following the Keynesian framework, Yang employs the fallacy of consumer spending as the basis for economic growth. Of course, if you measure economic growth as a measure of spending like GDP, less spending necessarily means less growth. Under the current GPD fixated Keynesian framework, it is spending rather than savings that makes the economy grow. But this is merely a matter of the mathematical formula that makes up GDP and says nothing about the logical considerations or intertemporal allocation of resources that should actually be examined when trying to judge what determines economic success.

As Yang’s Keynesian consumption fixated model goes, putting cash in the hands of individuals gives them confidence to spend. And when they spend more money other people receive more money and their confidence rises and they spend more money. And this circular flow continues. Yang employs this narrative as justification to hand out money under the UBI. This is the foundation of the Keynesian framework, which suggests that aggregate demand for goods is what drives the economy and a lack of demand for goods is what causes economic contraction. He seems unaware that great thinkers like Henry Hazlitt intellectually destroyedthis framework many years ago.

This model for viewing the economy ignores the fundamental tradeoff between producing consumption goods and producing investment goods. That is to say, it ignores the very notion of scarcity. Before more of something can be consumed, more of that thing must be produced. Producing more of a good first requires investment in capital goods like tractors, or welders, or production facilities. Investment in those capital goods necessarily requires savings, which is to say consuming less than otherwise possible. You cannot save if you have already maximized consumption. So it is savings, not spending that allows for greater consumption in the future. The Keynesian framework to which Yang likely unknowingly subscribes sweeps this entire consideration aside. It focuses purely on the need to boost aggregate demand. The employment of this model by the US government has led to the justification for the disastrous deficit spending, bail outs, and money printing of the past century.

This begs the question – why stop at $12,000 a year? If scarcity need not be considered, if the UBI is such a great idea, if high aggregate demand is the key to economic success, and if government can simply print money with no consequence as is readily suggested today, why not just give everyone a UBI of $100,000 per year with money printed by the Federal Reserve? To suggest that this is a ludicrous suggestion is to admit that there is indeed an undisclosed cost to such a UBI proposal and for the entire Keynesian framework for that matter.

1 Like
#183

You are 100% incorrect, applying centuries old outcomes to modern technology. There are many easy to point out examples where technology is destroying jobs at a much faster rate than they are being created. The auto industry is just one example where even educated people are being displaced. Large numbers of engineers will be out of work as well as skilled machinists because electric vehicles require far less employees to create.

You can not apply the logic of the industrial revolution to technology that is able to perform skilled work and also think and reason as well or better than a human.

Even doctors and radiologists are going to be displaced as AI gets better at interpreting X rays, MRI’s, CAT scans etc… than a seasoned human.

AI that can do accounting will decimate the accounting industry with 100% flawless performance.

Companies are making more profit than ever with a smaller labor force than ever. Productivity is increasing which is good but human work is decreasing rapidly which is obviously not good.

High tech companies like Google and Facebook make ~$1 Million per year per employee in revenue. The norm is only $200K.

You can’t seem to wrap your mind around the concept that AI and high technology is running the world with less humans being required. New jobs are created but there’s far fewer of them needed than the number of humans currently employed.

When 1/3 of the workforce is wiped out by AI driving cars what are all of those people going to do? You can’t retrain and find new jobs for 1/3 of the workforce. That’s only one example and it’s going to create a staggering impact very soon. There’s many other examples coming in 10 to 20 years.

1 Like