Calradianın Bilgesi said:
If you define Keynesianism as right wing, then yeah, sure. In my eyes UBI is more like Keynesian economics taken to the logical conclusion.
2016 U.S. Presidential Elections: The Circus Is In Full Swing
- Thread starter Anthropoid
- Start date
Users who are viewing this thread
If you define Keynesianism as right wing, then yeah, sure. In my eyes UBI is more like Keynesian economics taken to the logical conclusion.
Calradianın Bilgesi said:
I don't know how familiar you are with unemployment as it exists in the US but it's a huge headache and not really enough to live off of anyways. The whole point of UBI is removing what amounts to an administrative fee on social programs from the government's perspective. If they just give someone $1k that person can allocate the resource themselves rather than spending $1k on setting up unemployment programs, food stamps, etc, where not the whole $1k in value ends up in the people's hands.
Yea, I am wholly not in favor of UBI as a full on replacement for all welfare. Like Kurczak said, (even though I assume the cost of living in her area is way higher than mine, because I could uncomfortably get by on $30 a day) $1,000 a month is just not going to cut it as sole government aid for most people receiving it. If I had a UBI of $1,000 I'd sleep a lot easier about being able to pay off my medical bills and ****, but my family would still need food stamps. Bill is right in the sense that "Completely erase one of the major expenditures of government with this one simple trick" is extremely right wing because it would absolutely **** over I'm willing to bet more than half the people in this country on benefits if they just got a flat $1,000 but lost all other government aid. Thankfully, it's my understanding that most people aren't completely mental and don't propose it at the cost of literally all other government aid. It could definitely help cut back welfare massively in some areas, but since no one has bothered to adjust for inflation since 1867 taking away everyone's food stamps and Medicare would probably just lead to a revolution in a week, and rightfully so.
so what you're saying is that radical ubi is peak accelerationism?
Radical clear the board and start over, here's a flat rate UBI and no other government support is very stupid. But if implemented alongside existent programs and also revamping those to be more efficient and in line with the times, I find it hard to accept any arguments against it.
Flin Flon
You don't have to scrap government programs to implement UBI. You can 1. reduce or increase BI depending on how much a person receives in aid 2. let it stack with social programs (depending on the program in question) 3. you let the person in question choose between aid or BI (people would usually opt for yeetbucks).
You know what the school of economics that focuses on consumer demand, inspired by Keynesianism and synthesised with modern economic models is called? Neoclassical economics. Welcome to leftist neoliberalism, Jacob, you sly, sly capitalist.NUQAR'S Kentucky "Nuqar" James XXL said:
I'm looking and it's clearly emphasized that it would not replace social programs, or at the least not reduce an aid dependent's income. Do you have a source?Calradianın Bilgesi said:
Flin Flon said:
Flin Flon
Neoclassical efficiency-orientated economics + progressive taxation + redistribution = leftist ''neoliberalism'' (Bill Clinton and Tony Blair types)
It was half-joking because economically illiterate people (anti-capitalists) use it in a derogatory fashion.
EDIT: I should mention that the definition isn't necessarily the same for everyone.
It was half-joking because economically illiterate people (anti-capitalists) use it in a derogatory fashion.
EDIT: I should mention that the definition isn't necessarily the same for everyone.
i know you're joking 
still an oxymoron
still an oxymoron
Flin Flon
Well, leftist or left-leaning neoliberals is how social-liberals that adopt neoclassical economics are referred to by left-of-left leftists (I don't want to say far-left) including some sociologists.
The definition isn't the same for everyone but people like to bunch in Clinton, Blair and Obama with figures like Thatcher and Reagen all as ''neoliberals'' by virtue of their reliance on neoclassical economics when there is a clear distinction between these people with regard to their economic policies.
The definition isn't the same for everyone but people like to bunch in Clinton, Blair and Obama with figures like Thatcher and Reagen all as ''neoliberals'' by virtue of their reliance on neoclassical economics when there is a clear distinction between these people with regard to their economic policies.
left-leaning is acceptable.
Flin Flon said:
What are those clear distinctions? What fundamentally changed between Thatcher and Blair as opposed to Thatcher and Callaghan? As I understand it you're coming at this from an economic academic perspective but trying to group politicians as "Neoclassical Economists" is about as helpful or predictive as categorising Clinton and Blair as "Object-Oriented Ontologists", since politicians neither use strict economic nor ontological models to drive their policies. I'm sure you could trace all their ideas back to whatever economic thinktank proposed them, but it just seems like an excessively rigid model for viewing politics.
Flin Flon
I just say modern economic (models). I think redistribution and regulations are fundamental, which differed wildly between Thatcher and Blair. Keynesianism is cool but outdated. We've integrated the best parts into neoclassical. What we do with the generated wealth depends on the government. We know that neoliberalism is used as an accusation raised against Reagen and Thatcher but would be unfitting against Clinton and Blair. So the word loses its meaning. Is the accusation reliance on neoclassical economics? Or just when it fails? I dunno. It seems really dumb.
Flin Flon
Wtf leave fishy alone
Yes it's not complete abolishment. For Yang it is exactly this to be precise:Flin Flon said:
'Current welfare and social program beneficiaries would be given a choice between their current benefits or $1,000 cash unconditionally – most would prefer cash with no restriction.'
yang bad
Flin Flon
I understand. I just can't think of an economic system that is inherently protective of the environment. As long as production or resource gathering comes at the detriment of the environment we will not be able to separate the two, irrespective of the system. There are things like primitivists which are good memes but in the end, we organize our economy firstly around people, and people want things and activities that are made possible by capitalism.