What's your thoughts on "The Great Reset"

[Kjonus]

Been going down a few worm holes lately and this is one of them. Wondering what you guys think about it.

Below is a good summary but again what can you believe. It seems that a lot of the parallel paths that I've been reading and watching all from different sources seem to lead to a common point.

https://youtu.be/yXWiumjOyYE

[Disoblige]

Been going down a few worm holes lately and this is one of them. Wondering what you guys think about it.

Below is a good summary but again what can you believe. It seems that a lot of the parallel paths that I've been reading and watching all from different sources seem to lead to a common point.

https://youtu.be/yXWiumjOyYE
Human nature to want to "own" stuff.

Think of a dog and a bone. We're the same, whether we like to admit it or not.

[Tik-Tok]

I keep trying to find the reset button so I can start my game from the beginning, but can't find it. Only the power button.

[Antonito]

The Great Reset is meaningless tripe from all involved. Politicians will throw a glaze of happy bullshit on their standard corporate friendly agendas to help buoy the spirits of people feeling downtrodden by Covid, and right wing snowflakes will cry that satan is taking over.

Makes for some entertaining youtube videos though

[z24_wheels]

Reset button favors mid and low income brackets. Punishes upper bracket. Upper bracket controls everything. Why would they allow a reset? Not gonna happen unless they can get something out of it

Besides, hitting reset just means we will be back in this situation again eventually

[Tik-Tok]

Maybe we're resetting back to feudalism. That's good for the upper upper bracket.

[lilmira]

may be stone age? then we don't have to worry about toilet paper.

[ThePenIsMightier]

Reset button favors mid and low income brackets. Punishes upper bracket. Upper bracket controls everything. Why would they allow a reset? Not gonna happen unless they can get something out of it

Besides, hitting reset just means we will be back in this situation again eventually

^DING!!!!!!!!

/thread

[Power_Of_Rotary]

^DING!!!!!!!!

/thread


Lol back to the same situation but positions may be changed. You could be bezos and bezos could be working at mcdonalds!

[jutes]

Reset button favors mid and low income brackets. Punishes upper bracket. Upper bracket controls everything.

How much do I need to make to be in the upper bracket, $92k/y? Probably why I can't control things, don't make enough e-monies.

[riander5]

Can someone reset my purchase on condos in calgary. Thats all i really want. I'd even take student loans over them.

[max_boost]

UN2030 lol fk that shit

[Misterman]

How much do I need to make to be in the upper bracket, $92k/y? Probably why I can't control things, don't make enough e-monies.

Enough to not have debt. This supposed reset would benefit those who were frugal with their money or lived a debt free lifestyle, as they're the only ones that wouldn't be strongarmed into giving ownership of everything to the government. It could actually hurt the real rich that have so much business debt and are only rich in "net worth", when their property values all tank.

[Kobe]

The Great Reset is meaningless tripe from all involved. Politicians will throw a glaze of happy bullshit on their standard corporate friendly agendas to help buoy the spirits of people feeling downtrodden by Covid, and right wing snowflakes will cry that satan is taking over.

Makes for some entertaining youtube videos though

And this is why Both the left and right now need to stop arguing with each other about what is right and wrong and start to fight for rights.

This is why masks or no masks is such a big topic as well IMO..

I've been researching a lot for the last few months at how to look at this from a good financial point for the average person, might try to give my thoughts later on.

If anyone has not seen "The Family" on netflix, I'd highly recommend it, and if you watched it a year+ ago you should rewatch it, when it was released non of the information made any sense, or how power would happen.

A lot has changed now though, I've been watching it a second tme and stopping every few minutes to take notes to put it all together at the end.

Episode 1 is pretty mindblowing with what is happening now and what they wanted.



Reset button favors mid and low income brackets. Punishes upper bracket. Upper bracket controls everything. Why would they allow a reset? Not gonna happen unless they can get something out of it

Besides, hitting reset just means we will be back in this situation again eventually

Can also be consumers boycotting products as jobs are lost to AI.. Rather then fighting among each other they work together, and yes it will happen again, just like it happened from 1919 - 1945 where the UK ran out of money and had to borrow from the US since their pound was actually pegged to Gold at the time.

[ExtraSlow]

Great Reset or Green New Deal or whatev. Scary shit.
https://calgaryherald.com/news/politics/upcoming-liberal-policy-debates-include-high-speed-rail-universal-basic-income-green-new-deal/wcm/8869746a-1a10-46a3-a181-e67ad98a6ecb
98459

[ZenOps]

Its going to be appealing to the young generation that has little wealth as is now, and very little prospects for attaining in the near future.

I always like to mention, that if you were born in a commonwealth nation - you are technically allowed to ask Queen Elizabeth for "Jubilee". Have heard stories of debt absolution all the way up to house. The Queen does afterall own 1/6th (6.6 Billion acres) of the earth, as a corporation.

[mr2mike]

Considering Canada's Finance Minister is in love with the 1% and is now in a position to get there herself via your tax dollars, consider high quality lube in the coming months.
https://www.amazon.com/Plutocrats-Rise-Global-Super-Rich-Everyone/dp/1594204098
98554

[CUG]

I have a really unintelligent aunt who thinks "this is all communism". In reality it's the acceleration of capitalism:

1.) Well-resourced people are not struggling really at all, other than their "mental health" issues around not being able to as easily visit Mykonos and party at Coachella
2.) The principle of scarcity is predictably offering its outcome (shortages of XYZ, increasing costs of XYZ; see lumber, RVs, food, etc)
3.) Less-resourced people are in a severe all around depression
4.) Record profits for well-positioned corporations/businesses
5.) The fall of smaller less-resourced businesses
6.) Predictably, when the government provided coverage for those less-resourced people, the angry lower-middle-class screamed about communism because poor people apparently shouldn't be able to eat or have shelter.

Personally, this situation has walked a few of the remaining conservative values I had out the door. I cannot identify with people who have zero empathy for others in such a loud manner, in order to, in essence, defend billionaires.

Great reset? You're seeing the system play out in its natural manner. To suggest this was a massive conspiracy is, as a metaphor, to expose your underwhelming and defective genitals to the internet. (not OP specifically)

[mr2mike]

Might be going for a thread split but...

Here is a commentary on Canada's universal basic income experiment done decades ago.

https://www.bbc.com/worklife/article/20200624-canadas-forgotten-universal-basic-income-experiment

Items to address: Cost to roll out to entire country and long term ability to keep it going without crippled taxes on higher income earners.

What if you're close to the cutoff but above it. Encourages you to fall into the UBI range.

[ExtraSlow]

I thought the deal with UBI was that there was no "clawback" for small amounts earned above it? Like there was no disincentive to working whatever shitty party time job you coukd get on top of UBI?

[Buster]

I have a really unintelligent aunt who thinks "this is all communism". In reality it's the acceleration of capitalism:

1.) Well-resourced people are not struggling really at all, other than their "mental health" issues around not being able to as easily visit Mykonos and party at Coachella
2.) The principle of scarcity is predictably offering its outcome (shortages of XYZ, increasing costs of XYZ; see lumber, RVs, food, etc)
3.) Less-resourced people are in a severe all around depression
4.) Record profits for well-positioned corporations/businesses
5.) The fall of smaller less-resourced businesses
6.) Predictably, when the government provided coverage for those less-resourced people, the angry lower-middle-class screamed about communism because poor people apparently shouldn't be able to eat or have shelter.

Personally, this situation has walked a few of the remaining conservative values I had out the door. I cannot identify with people who have zero empathy for others in such a loud manner, in order to, in essence, defend billionaires.

Great reset? You're seeing the system play out in its natural manner. To suggest this was a massive conspiracy is, as a metaphor, to expose your underwhelming and defective genitals to the internet. (not OP specifically)


1. Well resourced people aren't struggling because they are well resourced. That's the point of being well-resourced.
2. Scarcity increasing prices is a positive signal of markets functioning as they should. Higher prices means new entrants and a reduction in prices.
3. Move from being less resourced to more resourced. See #2
4. Well positioned firms should make profits, record or no record. If they are well positioned because of gov't activity and influence, then that is not capitalism.
5. creative destruction is a positive outcome of capitalism
6. governments are a poor allocator of capital. This is a universal objective truth, and all people of all resource levels should be agreeing on this. The best solution to poverty is capitalism, not government largesse. Stupid people make arguments about this not working because it is "trickle down economics" or other equivalent nonsense. If you want to create the largest area under the curve for wages, you accomplish this by making the labour markets more efficient, not less efficient. Government intervention in labour markets makes them less efficient, basically by definition.

[suntan]

It was blind luck and a lot of lobbying that convinced govts to shut down mom and pop stores that get 1-2 people inside them at any given time and to keep Costco open where there's still a zillion people inside.

[CUG]

1. Well resourced people aren't struggling because they are well resourced. That's the point of being well-resourced.
2. Scarcity increasing prices is a positive signal of markets functioning as they should. Higher prices means new entrants and a reduction in prices.
3. Move from being less resourced to more resourced. See #2
4. Well positioned firms should make profits, record or no record. If they are well positioned because of gov't activity and influence, then that is not capitalism.
5. creative destruction is a positive outcome of capitalism
6. governments are a poor allocator of capital. This is a universal objective truth, and all people of all resource levels should be agreeing on this. The best solution to poverty is capitalism, not government largesse. Stupid people make arguments about this not working because it is "trickle down economics" or other equivalent nonsense. If you want to create the largest area under the curve for wages, you accomplish this by making the labour markets more efficient, not less efficient. Government intervention in labour markets makes them less efficient, basically by definition.

1.) No way...
2.) Oh neat, the green line is going up; even seasoned finance hardos know the efficient/rational market hypothesis is bullshit, but go off.
3.) Sorry, I don't speak boomer.
4.) Why consider information that clearly highlights contributions to a shrinking middle class, wealth hoarding, less opportunity, and poverty if you don't have to?
5.) This might be offensive, but you're never going to be a billionaire. Your head is not safe from that same guillotine.
6.) I would imagine the person who lost their job, couldn't pay rent and feed themselves/family at the same time would disagree with you.

I used to admire people with ruthless attitudes towards others as it related to social welfare, but now I recognize the insecurity and how they'll do gymnastics to defend the elite while being closer to homelessness and poverty than they'll ever be, while under the false assumption that everyone has the same access to the same opportunities.

Because of that, I fully support a well-structured UBI. Ancillary benefits of that is watching boom-flakes lose their shit, while supporting corporate welfare the whole time.

[killramos]

If there was anything resembling scarcity in labour (skilled or otherwise), no one (willing to work, fuck those who aren’t) would even care about UBI.

Current, and historical, unemployment rates suggest people generally aren’t worth anywhere near what they think they are as it is. And government intervention in labour markets have exacerbated this problem, ironically (and predictably) things like minimum wage bumps have artificially increased the desirability of UBI.

UBI is simply a socialist rejection of capitalism by those who would prefer to take from others what they aren unwilling to earn for themselves.

[Buster]

1.) No way...
2.) Oh neat, the green line is going up; even seasoned finance hardos know the efficient/rational market hypothesis is bullshit, but go off.
3.) Sorry, I don't speak boomer.
4.) Why consider information that clearly highlights contributions to a shrinking middle class, wealth hoarding, less opportunity, and poverty if you don't have to?
5.) This might be offensive, but you're never going to be a billionaire. Your head is not safe from that same guillotine.
6.) I would imagine the person who lost their job, couldn't pay rent and feed themselves/family at the same time would disagree with you.

I used to admire people with ruthless attitudes towards others as it related to social welfare, but now I recognize the insecurity and how they'll do gymnastics to defend the elite while being closer to homelessness and poverty than they'll ever be, while under the false assumption that everyone has the same access to the same opportunities.

Because of that, I fully support a well-structured UBI. Ancillary benefits of that is watching boom-flakes lose their shit, while supporting corporate welfare the whole time.

The point I was trying to make was that you use the word "capitalism" as if you know what it means. But you don't.

[Tik-Tok]

Unions are the lovechild of capitalism and little government oversight. If capitalism worked the way it should, there never would have been a need for them.

[killramos]

Unions are just labour cartels intent on setting up barriers to market forces. For capitalism to work as intended they should be outlawed just like every other form of cartel in business by a government who enables market forces to determine value.

That is the role of government in a free and enterprising society.

[Buster]

I'm fine with unions existing. The problem is the legal protections for unions.

Unions should be allowed to exist, and employers should be allowed to bust them.

[CUG]

If there was anything resembling scarcity in labour (skilled or otherwise), no one (willing to work, fuck those who aren’t) would even care about UBI.

Current, and historical, unemployment rates suggest people generally aren’t worth anywhere near what they think they are as it is. And government intervention in labour markets have exacerbated this problem, ironically (and predictably) things like minimum wage bumps have artificially increased the desirability of UBI.

UBI is simply a socialist rejection of capitalism by those who would prefer to take from others what they aren unwilling to earn for themselves.
Your first point is odd because there is no labor scarcity in Alberta right now, or Canada for that matter.
Your second point seems to ignore how fast automation is happening, even for people farting in a leather chair at their office.
You think government intervention has devalued labour, and not private-sector outsourcing of our entire manufacturing structures to countries with cheap labour.

I wouldn't qualify for UBI and I fully support it over the current welfare systems; utilizing the current budgeted money for the existing welfare programs - and related programs would offer enough funding to cover a UBI, and it models out better than the current allocation. But I understand your not wanting people at the bottom to feel empowered. (http://www.ssc.wisc.edu/~wright/Basic%20Income%20as%20a%20Socialist%20Project.pdf) The big red Soviet Boogeyman® is coming for you.


The point I was trying to make was that you use the word "capitalism" as if you know what it means. But you don't.
I suppose that's one easy way to look at it :rofl:

[Buster]

Your first point is odd because there is no labor scarcity in Alberta right now, or Canada for that matter.
Your second point seems to ignore how fast automation is happening, even for people farting in a leather chair at their office.
You think government intervention has devalued labour, and not private-sector outsourcing of our entire manufacturing structures to countries with cheap labour.

I wouldn't qualify for UBI and I fully support it over the current welfare systems; utilizing the current budgeted money for the existing welfare programs - and related programs would offer enough funding to cover a UBI, and it models out better than the current allocation. But I understand your not wanting people at the bottom to feel empowered. (http://www.ssc.wisc.edu/~wright/Basic%20Income%20as%20a%20Socialist%20Project.pdf) The big red Soviet Boogeyman® is coming for you.


I suppose that's one easy way to look at it :rofl:

If you think UBI will (actually can) be implemented, you're just being naïve.

[Tik-Tok]

Unions are just labour cartels intent on setting up barriers to market forces. For capitalism to work as intended they should be outlawed just like every other form of cartel in business by a government who enables market forces to determine value.

That is the role of government in a free and enterprising society.

That's what unions are now, but unions didn't need to exist if employers weren't having their employees arrested and jailed for calling in sick, or if they had safer conditions that weren't literally killing them etc.

People who think pure capitalism works are just as insane as people who think pure communism work. Both might work if humans weren't inherently greedy assholes.

[killramos]

Humans being greedy assholes is exactly, simultaneously, and demonstratively in history why capitalism works, and socialism doesn’t.

[CUG]

That's what unions are now, but unions didn't need to exist if employers weren't having their employees arrested and jailed for calling in sick, or if they had safer conditions that weren't literally killing them etc.

People who think pure capitalism works are just as insane as people who think pure communism work. Both might work if humans weren't inherently greedy assholes.

No way, a hybrid model couldn't possibly work! Most these folks refuse to identify that their quality of life as it relates to work is largely because of union work back in the day. So long as people making between 65-125k/year think they will eventually be members of the wealthy elite, it will never happen. They can't handle their apparently hard work being devalued like that :rofl:


If you think UBI will (actually can) be implemented, you're just being naïve.

Yeah, sounds like the same argument being made against electric cars AnD tHe InFrAsTrUcTuRe NoT sUpPoRtInG it. I see extreme value in my tax dollar helping someone eat, even if they're not as motivated to climb ladders as you or I might be. Oh shit, they bought beer and cigarettes to try and carve out some comfort for themselves on the weekend - even better. :thumbsup:

[Tik-Tok]

Humans being greedy assholes is exactly, simultaneously, and demonstratively in history why capitalism works, and socialism doesn’t.

Being greedy is what makes capitalism work, being an asshole and treating your workers like subhumans is what makes it not work.

[Buster]

Yeah, sounds like the same argument being made against electric cars AnD tHe InFrAsTrUcTuRe NoT sUpPoRtInG it. I see extreme value in my tax dollar helping someone eat, even if they're not as motivated to climb ladders as you or I might be. Oh shit, they bought beer and cigarettes to try and carve out some comfort for themselves on the weekend - even better. :thumbsup:

What you see value in is irrelevant.

There are at least two problems that will make UBIs a non-starter:

1. It relies on an arbitrary value, presumably set by the government. This is no different than government setting prices - which never works.
2. All political parties are setup to utilize handouts to influence peoples' votes. If you could actually implement a structure which requires no government decisions on allocation of funds, then are reducing the influence of the political class. No political party willingly chooses to reduce the influence of the political class and succeeds long term. In other words for the politicians and the parasitic bureaucracy a UBI would be a self-defeating policy. So ya, good luck with that.

[JRSC00LUDE]

If you think UBI will (actually can) be implemented, you're just being naïve.

If you think the current gov't is above doing it anyway, regardless of the downstream cost/effect, you're also being a tad naive.

[killramos]

Being greedy is what makes capitalism work, being an asshole and treating your workers like subhumans is what makes it not work.

Sorry. So socialism is the solution to workers being treated as subhuman or being people being assholes? History suggests otherwise in a big way.

Or is the logic that by mashing 2 systems of assholes together we solve the problems of each?

[suntan]

Yeah, sounds like the same argument being made against electric cars AnD tHe InFrAsTrUcTuRe NoT sUpPoRtInG it. I see extreme value in my tax dollar helping someone eat, even if they're not as motivated to climb ladders as you or I might be. Oh shit, they bought beer and cigarettes to try and carve out some comfort for themselves on the weekend - even better. :thumbsup:

See boys and girls, math really is hard.

[JRSC00LUDE]

Being greedy is what makes capitalism work, being an asshole and treating your workers like subhumans is what makes it not work.

Part B there is every socialist country..........ever?

[Buster]

If you think the current gov't is above doing it anyway, regardless of the downstream cost/effect, you're also being a tad naive.

There are going to implement something. They might even call it a UBI. But it will just be another layer of welfare with the retention of the existing welfare system. Which is the worst of all worlds.

[Tik-Tok]

Part B there is every socialist country..........ever?

We're living in socialism right now, because our capitalism 100 years ago didn't work. Communism treats people like subhumans, again communism doesn't work either.

[killramos]

There are going to implement something. They might even call it a UBI. But it will just be another layer of welfare with the retention of the existing welfare system. Which is the worst of all worlds.

Ooooooooo caaaaaaanadaaaaaaaaaaa

[ThePenIsMightier]

Ooooooooo caaaaaaanadaaaaaaaaaaa

Stop committing so many hate crimes and sing the fucking anthem in Cree/Français with no gender pronouns like a proper Canadian (Unic)!!!

[Buster]

We're living in socialism right now, because our capitalism 100 years ago didn't work. Communism treats people like subhumans, again communism doesn't work either.

What do you mean? Capitalism in the 20th century has been a spectacular success.

I've seen strong arguments that capitalism is the greatest invention of peoplekind.

[ZenOps]

Communism did work in the USA. 160 million acres of the USA was divided up for free to 1 million people. Black people got "40 acres and a mule".

When Trump talked of the great old days, he is talking about the period after WWII up to the sixties. Which is Eisenhower and his 91% tax rate.

Could it work again? Doesn't really matter because humans are mostly obsolete when faced with the machine. What people really are going to be getting is slavery of the machine.

[Xtrema]

What do you mean? Capitalism in the 20th century has been a spectacular success.

I've seen strong arguments that capitalism is the greatest invention of peoplekind.

Only because we were able export all the bad parts to other countries. But the counter argument is that workers' right is why we don't make anything here any more.

[Buster]

Only because we were able export all the bad parts to other countries. But the counter argument is that workers' right is why we don't make anything here any more.

What do you mean we exported all the best parts? You mean the roof jumpers into the suicide nets in XXXXX province?

[JRSC00LUDE]

There are going to implement something. They might even call it a UBI. But it will just be another layer of welfare with the retention of the existing welfare system. Which is the worst of all worlds.

God dammit.

[Tik-Tok]

What do you mean? Capitalism in the 20th century has been a spectacular success.

I've seen strong arguments that capitalism is the greatest invention of peoplekind.

Late 20th century. After the government decided they couldn't just let corporations have a free-for-all and implemented regulations to protect workers. This of course means it wasn't actually pure capitalism, but a blend.

Don't get me wrong, I despise that we're socialists that are going MORE towards communism (ie UBI). We hit the sweet spot a few decades ago and before I even entered the workforce.

[Buster]

Late 20th century. After the government decided they couldn't just let corporations have a free-for-all and implemented regulations to protect workers. This of course means it wasn't actually pure capitalism, but a blend.

Don't get me wrong, I despise that we're socialists that are going MORE towards communism (ie UBI). We hit the sweet spot a few decades ago and before I even entered the workforce.

The core of capitalism isn't a lack of worker safety. The core of capitalism is the mechanism which are used to set prices. We can have a discussion about whether worker safety was a natural progression of business and culture or a legislated thing (or both). But ultimately worker safety is not the type of regulatory environment that is designed to set prices even if the additional overhead will impact prices in a minor relatively even way. I would say that worker safety laws are often regulation done right.

People think that abuse of labour is part of the definition of capitalism, which is not true.

[Xtrema]

What do you mean we exported all the best parts? You mean the roof jumpers into the suicide nets in XXXXX province?

Yup.

or

https://www.imore.com/apple-confirms-workers-not-paid-correctly-india-iphone-plant-supplier-probation#:~:text=According%20to%20ET%20Now%3A,damage%20worth%20millions%20of%20dollars.

or

https://longreads.com/2018/06/12/how-amazon-exploits-chinese-workers-to-crank-out-its-products/

The billion or so Chinese who felt they got left behind by the richer 400M is gonna start another cultural revolution soon.

Anyway, I like capitalism but I think we just disagree on the level of check and balance applied.

The whole UBI sounds good if it scraps everything else like EI and OAS. But I think you are right that UBI will be a label of another program that lays over the top of everything else just to buy votes in the next election.

[Buster]

Yup.

or

https://www.imore.com/apple-confirms-workers-not-paid-correctly-india-iphone-plant-supplier-probation#:~:text=According%20to%20ET%20Now%3A,damage%20worth%20millions%20of%20dollars.

or

https://longreads.com/2018/06/12/how-amazon-exploits-chinese-workers-to-crank-out-its-products/

The billion or so Chinese who felt they got left behind by the richer 400M is gonna start another cultural revolution soon.

I'm not sure this bolsters your point.

[suntan]

1. Well resourced people aren't struggling because they are well resourced. That's the point of being well-resourced.
2. Scarcity increasing prices is a positive signal of markets functioning as they should. Higher prices means new entrants and a reduction in prices.
3. Move from being less resourced to more resourced. See #2
4. Well positioned firms should make profits, record or no record. If they are well positioned because of gov't activity and influence, then that is not capitalism.
5. creative destruction is a positive outcome of capitalism
6. governments are a poor allocator of capital. This is a universal objective truth, and all people of all resource levels should be agreeing on this. The best solution to poverty is capitalism, not government largesse. Stupid people make arguments about this not working because it is "trickle down economics" or other equivalent nonsense. If you want to create the largest area under the curve for wages, you accomplish this by making the labour markets more efficient, not less efficient. Government intervention in labour markets makes them less efficient, basically by definition.

You are mostly describing effects derived from the efficient market hypothesis.

Hypothetically even a wholly planned economy could derive these same results, however due to the much smaller number of market participants I wouldn't say it'd be too feasible.

[Buster]

You are mostly describing effects derived from the efficient market hypothesis.

Hypothetically even a wholly planned economy could derive these same results, however due to the much smaller number of market participants I wouldn't say it'd be too feasible.

Hypothetically if the moon was made of cheese we could have a giant fondue.

[suntan]

Hypothetically if the moon was made of cheese we could have a giant fondue.

But there's a CHANCE! We just need the right people!

[killramos]

We just haven’t tried real moon fondue yet

[CUG]

What do you mean we exported all the best parts?
I agree that capitalism has brought the best quality of life for the most amount of people in history, but that trend line is moving downward now.

[CUG]

What you see value in is irrelevant.

There are at least two problems that will make UBIs a non-starter:

1. It relies on an arbitrary value, presumably set by the government. This is no different than government setting prices - which never works.
2. All political parties are setup to utilize handouts to influence peoples' votes. If you could actually implement a structure which requires no government decisions on allocation of funds, then are reducing the influence of the political class. No political party willingly chooses to reduce the influence of the political class and succeeds long term. In other words for the politicians and the parasitic bureaucracy a UBI would be a self-defeating policy. So ya, good luck with that.

You're overconfident and oversimplistic on all points.

You're right, my assessment of value is meaningless until enough people are aligned with those values, then the wolf of wall street posers will have to pivot to a sustainable model. I admire your enthusiasm, but it's unsustainable at almost every level.


See boys and girls, math really is hard.

The models exist already, chihuahua.

[Antonito]

I agree that capitalism has brought the best quality of life for the most amount of people in history, but that trend line is moving downward now.

It's worth noting that Buster misread what Xtrema said, substituting "best" for "bad", and at no point being able to pick up on context clues for the rest of their conversation

[Buster]

It's worth noting that Buster misread what Xtrema said, substituting "best" for "bad", and at no point being able to pick up on context clues for the rest of their conversation

You're right!

Doh!

[ExtraSlow]

98605
Me watching this thread.

[Buster]

You're overconfident and oversimplistic on all points.

You're right, my assessment of value is meaningless until enough people are aligned with those values, then the wolf of wall street posers will have to pivot to a sustainable model. I admire your enthusiasm, but it's unsustainable at almost every level.



The models exist already, chihuahua.

What's unsustainable? Capitalism? Be specific when you make ap oint.

And no, my points are not simplistic. They are simply reality. No political entity will remove their power to influence people by buying their votes. It's their single most valuable lever. Your dream of a UBI is a non-starter for this very reason.

As for my other point: it relies on gov't bureaucrats setting prices for what the UBI should be. This type of central planning is always fatally flawed. Even if society could manage to implement a UBI despite the political class never allowing it, you are always going to be faced with the pricing problem. Both of these points are conveniently ignored by UBI advocates. It's barely better than the Miss USA candidates saying that their dream is to solve world hunger and have peace all over.

[suntan]

I could see Trudeau as a Miss USA contestant.

[ThePenIsMightier]

I could see Trudeau as a Miss USA contestant.

Doesn't Trump own that pageant?
No way he's letting someone brown win.

[killramos]

Doesn't Trump own that pageant?
No way he's letting someone brown win.

Trump just dates the contestants. Not sure if Trudeau has the knees for him though.

[ExtraSlow]

Trump hasn't owned that pageant in a while.

[Misterman]

I have a really unintelligent aunt who thinks "this is all communism". In reality it's the acceleration of capitalism:

1.) Well-resourced people are not struggling really at all, other than their "mental health" issues around not being able to as easily visit Mykonos and party at Coachella
2.) The principle of scarcity is predictably offering its outcome (shortages of XYZ, increasing costs of XYZ; see lumber, RVs, food, etc)
3.) Less-resourced people are in a severe all around depression
4.) Record profits for well-positioned corporations/businesses
5.) The fall of smaller less-resourced businesses
6.) Predictably, when the government provided coverage for those less-resourced people, the angry lower-middle-class screamed about communism because poor people apparently shouldn't be able to eat or have shelter.

Personally, this situation has walked a few of the remaining conservative values I had out the door. I cannot identify with people who have zero empathy for others in such a loud manner, in order to, in essence, defend billionaires.

Great reset? You're seeing the system play out in its natural manner. To suggest this was a massive conspiracy is, as a metaphor, to expose your underwhelming and defective genitals to the internet. (not OP specifically)

Wow. You've managed to fall for every socialist/communist illusion there is. Keep the blinders on, everything thing is fine.

EDIT- Judging by your negative rep, you're angry. I honestly wouldn't know where to start in pointing out all the errors in your thinking on this one. We have to go all the way back and teach you about simple economics like inflation that you are demonstrating a complete lack of understanding on.

Every problem we are seeing in the world right now is due to centralized power and overeach of government, not capitalism. Hilarious that you would think something like UBI is a construct of capitalism, and that it is a good idea to help people that are hurting. That's the equivalent of having a knife cut, and then shooting yourself so that the knife wound won't bother you any longer. The reason the poor keep getting poorer, is because the government won't stop creating crazy inflation by printing money. And they are doubling down on killing the poor and wiping out the middle class by further fucking up our monetary issues with UBI.

For somebody claiming to be empathetic, you sure fucking hate the poor and seem to want to see the rich get richer.

The entirety of the "Great Reset" revolves around further centralizing power, and removing freedoms and opportunity of citizens. It's basically text book Communism. The likes of Buster and the rest of us do not have to believe we can make it to Billionaire status to be against this. We simply do not want to be strangled down to current lowest level of poverty, which is exactly what these great reset policies lead to. Weird, just like Communism has always done.




I thought the deal with UBI was that there was no "clawback" for small amounts earned above it? Like there was no disincentive to working whatever shitty party time job you coukd get on top of UBI?

Seems like they have changed their tune on that with the latest news we are seeing.



Doesn't Trump own that pageant?
No way he's letting someone brown win.

At least he would have another pussy to grab.

[davidI]

All this MMT bullshit greatly concerns me. We know who will benefit most.

(To save others doing the calculation, it works out to ~16x, 11.5x, 7.4x, 4.6x, respectively).

98606

Credit expansion, deficits/debt, and government support of zombie companies is of greatest benefit to the plutocrats.

[Buster]

All this MMT bullshit greatly concerns me. We know who will benefit most.

(To save others doing the calculation, it works out to ~16x, 11.5x, 7.4x, 4.6x, respectively).

98606

Credit expansion, deficits/debt, and government support of zombie companies is of greatest benefit to the plutocrats.

A person who makes a dollar off of rent-seeking and government regulatory capture is more dangerous than a capitalist that makes a billion dollars.

[davidI]

A person who makes a dollar off of rent-seeking and government regulatory capture is more dangerous than a capitalist that makes a billion dollars.

Note sure if I understand your point - at the moment, my view is that it's the capitalists making the billions off of regulatory capture and rent-seeking.

Stimulus, easy credit conditions, and growing bureaucracy have basically made it so dominant corporations haven't had to compete against anyone for over a decade. Even the "disruptive innovators" are basically just monopolies who price-out or buy-out their competitors with easy money now (granted, the lucky few who get bought out do gain from their efforts).

[Buster]

Note sure if I understand your point - at the moment, my view is that it's the capitalists making the billions off of regulatory capture and rent-seeking.

Stimulus, easy credit conditions, and growing bureaucracy have basically made it so dominant corporations haven't had to compete against anyone for over a decade. Even the "disruptive innovators" are basically just monopolies who price-out or buy-out their competitors with easy money now (granted, the lucky few who get bought out do gain from their efforts).

those aren't capitalists.

[davidI]

those aren't capitalists.

Who are modern day capitalists then? SMEs taking advantage of cheap credit to fight through the bureaucracy? Seems to me the small caps have been failing more than succeeding.

[JRSC00LUDE]

Hypothetically if the moon was made of cheese we could have a giant fondue.

Well since there was never a moon landing, do we really even know?

[Buster]

Who are modern day capitalists then? SMEs taking advantage of cheap credit to fight through the bureaucracy? Seems to me the small caps have been failing more than succeeding.

Anyone working within a system that is free from government price controls and coercion is a capitalist. They are either successful or not, but they are operating in a free market.

Anybody who is not operating in such a system is not a capitalist.

It's not like you can declare yourself "I am a CAPITALIST, I shall do capitalism!" It's an economic and political system not a personal one.

[ExtraSlow]

So nobody in Europe or North America then. Probably lots in Africa.

[ZenOps]

Capitalists have already bailed on US dollars, and Yen and Yuan.

They all moved to digital currencies. Its very hard to "owe" someone a Bitcoin, there is really no banking structure setup to lend a Bitcoin into the future. As well it should be. You should only be in government fiat currencies if you believe that debt bondage should be a thing.

I'd rather have real growth and progress year over year, decade on decade, century to century - not whatever NASA is (If a $10,000 toilet seat represents capitalism in America)

[mr2mike]

Given what I know. I'd much more support a beefed up school program to feed and get clothing/supplies to the kids that attend who need it.
Parents are going to spend UBI on what they want first (generally) and food ain't one of them.

But feeding kids at school isn't going to buy votes. Maybe long term when they become 18. But who knows what Trudeau will identify as when that happens.

[Buster]

So nobody in Europe or North America then. Probably lots in Africa.

You can identify lots of cases of explosive growth in African countries after a failed-state status and the people start to rebuild infrastructure from the ground up. Market participants begin to solve problems. Then the warlords take over and whatever.

As for NA and Europe - I think you are correct, we're becoming less and less free market and are suffering the consequences.

[Antonito]

You can identify lots of cases of explosive growth in African countries after a failed-state status and the people start to rebuild infrastructure from the ground up. Market participants begin to solve problems. Then the warlords take over and whatever.

As for NA and Europe - I think you are correct, we're becoming less and less free market and are suffering the consequences.

Examples of these cases?

[suntan]

Examples of these cases?

Wakanda.

[Xtrema]

Given what I know. I'd much more support a beefed up school program to feed and get clothing/supplies to the kids that attend who need it.
Parents are going to spend UBI on what they want first (generally) and food ain't one of them.

But feeding kids at school isn't going to buy votes. Maybe long term when they become 18. But who knows what Trudeau will identify as when that happens.

Still got my Ralph Bucks PC here somewhere, probably in pieces tho.

We already had our UBI experiment called CERB and while it legitimately help some, most other just went to PS5 and stonks (or flipping the PS5s for stonks). Every gov program will have undeserved recipients. I have no problem looking at UBI as a replacement for may be 5+ current government programs to streamline and reduce cost of operating those programs. But we all know it's going to have its own hookers and blackjack tables.

[killramos]

Yes. UBI only works out if we eliminate the rest of the safety net in exchange and literally let people rot if they make bad decisions.

I highly doubt most of the bleeding hearts advocating for it would allow that.

Instead UBI is just a massive expansion of socialist wealth redistributions, like pretty much every other government policy.

[Buster]

Yes. UBI only works out if we eliminate the rest of the safety net in exchange and literally let people rot if they make bad decisions.

I highly doubt most of the bleeding hearts advocating for it would allow that.

Instead UBI is just a massive expansion of socialist wealth redistributions, like pretty much every other government policy.

this is why UBI will never happen. Ever.

[suntan]

this is why UBI will never happen. Ever.

Imagine Trudeau explaining why CPP is redundant in an UBI system.

[heavyD]

UBI is a great idea if your dream is a nation full of Frank Gallaghers.

[CUG]

davidI don't let Buster's stoicism offer anything more than an opinion. Conditions that exist as a result of capitalism is a capitalist outcome, whether or not he wants to try and dictionary the discussion. Literalists just move goal posts for a living. Socialists and communists do the same thing by saying a condition or situation wasn't a true definition of XYZ political structure. Capitalists and conservatives are starting to do it more frequently now as well. Buster, that shit's funny, but it's retiring any critical evaluation in the name of protecting a core belief.

[suntan]

davidI don't let Buster's stoicism offer anything more than an opinion. Conditions that exist as a result of capitalism is a capitalist outcome, whether or not he wants to try and dictionary the discussion. Literalists just move goal posts for a living. Socialists and communists do the same thing by saying a condition or situation wasn't a true definition of XYZ political structure. Capitalists and conservatives are starting to do it more frequently now as well. Buster, that shit's funny, but it's retiring any critical evaluation in the name of protecting a core belief.

Alright, what is it you want?

UBI? Okay then, I figure then everybody that makes over about $60000/yr will have to pay about 60% in income taxes if you're looking for a self-sustaining system. Based on empirical data from other countries a total tax burden of about 70% results in mass migration of those earners.

Like I don't think you understand just how many people make < $40K/yr. More importantly, you clearly don't know how few people make what you or I make. And taxing the fuck out of us isn't enough to run something like UBI.

Shall we tax wealth? Great! Get rid of all tax shelters. All RRSPs and TFSAs get converted to taxable investment accounts. Add on a yearly cap gains tax.

Hell since you'll get UBI until you're dead, why even hoard wealth at all? The gov't should just take it all.

But at the end of the day, you've sacrificed continued productivity for short-term cash. And that will, absolutely guaranteed, lead to monetary inflation.

[Buster]

davidI don't let Buster's stoicism offer anything more than an opinion. Conditions that exist as a result of capitalism is a capitalist outcome, whether or not he wants to try and dictionary the discussion. Literalists just move goal posts for a living. Socialists and communists do the same thing by saying a condition or situation wasn't a true definition of XYZ political structure. Capitalists and conservatives are starting to do it more frequently now as well. Buster, that shit's funny, but it's retiring any critical evaluation in the name of protecting a core belief.

People removing free markets is the opposite of people creating free markets. You're making a claim that free markets eventually lead to not free markets. There is no reason for that to be an inherent feature of free markets and capitalism.

You've made a terrible point.

[Antonito]

People removing free markets is the opposite of people creating free markets. You're making a claim that free markets eventually lead to not free markets. There is no reason for that to be an inherent feature of free markets and capitalism.

You've made a terrible point.

No true capitalism

We haven't actually tried capitalism

Capitalism cannot fail, it can only be failed

[mr2mike]

UBI is a great idea if your dream is a nation full of Frank Gallaghers.

“When I collect workman's comp, some lady has to fill out the paperwork. That's her job. If it wasn't for me, she'd be unemployed.”
-Frank Gallagher

[heavyD]

“When I collect workman's comp, some lady has to fill out the paperwork. That's her job. If it wasn't for me, she'd be unemployed.”
-Frank Gallagher


Frank's the best.

[vengie]

“When I collect workman's comp, some lady has to fill out the paperwork. That's her job. If it wasn't for me, she'd be unemployed.”
-Frank Gallagher

But now everyone will be on UBI, so why would I want to fill out the paperwork for you when I can do nothing and collect just as much as you do?

*explosion sounds*

[ZenOps]

About 10 million delivery jobs are about to evaporate. Dominos is following Kroger and doing the autonomous driver in electric car thing. About 8 to 12 cents per delivery, which will only get cheaper in the future if they expand the efficiency of the power grid and start removing gasoline based tech.

Can a human compete with that in a capitalist system? Of course not, human can't even compete with that in a communist system. 8 to 12 cents will let you start the engine and pay for two seconds of human wages.

As I've said before, both left and right are obsolete when the machine starts to take over the human mind.

[CUG]

People removing free markets is the opposite of people creating free markets. You're making a claim that free markets eventually lead to not free markets. There is no reason for that to be an inherent feature of free markets and capitalism.

You've made a terrible point.

If your free market is a dumpster fire, and in an effort to life/quality of life/peace - requires regulation of that free market, then free market capitalism is causal. I'm not sure I can simplify anything for you to the level you'll be able to digest. You're far too simplistic.

- - - Updated - - -


No true capitalism

We haven't actually tried capitalism

Capitalism cannot fail, it can only be failed

by anti-union, anti-labor, anti-bigscaryboogeyman.

The wealthy elite need labour, labour does not need the wealthy elite; least of all thousandaires believing they can be billionaires some day but acting like they're already there. Buster, come at me about trickle-down econ now

[Buster]

If your free market is a dumpster fire, and in an effort to life/quality of life/peace - requires regulation of that free market, then free market capitalism is causal. I'm not sure I can simplify anything for you to the level you'll be able to digest. You're far too simplistic.

- - - Updated - - -



by anti-union, anti-labor, anti-bigscaryboogeyman.

The wealthy elite need labour, labour does not need the wealthy elite; least of all thousandaires believing they can be billionaires some day but acting like they're already there. Buster, come at me about trickle-down econ now

These are the same dogshit Marxist ideologies that have been peed down peoples' legs for decades. You're not doing anything new here.

[CUG]

These are the same dogshit Marxist ideologies that have been peed down peoples' legs for decades. You're not doing anything new here.

Hold the line every Good Christian™ learned from their pappy and they grand-pappy. You're not making a confident rebuttal. At least we agree on vaccines though.

[Buster]

Hold the line every Good Christian™ learned from their pappy and they grand-pappy. You're not making a confident rebuttal. At least we agree on vaccines though.

I'm not making a rebuttal at all... I'm telling you your arguments are boring and played out. You're no longer holding my interest.

[ZenOps]

The problem with capitalism, is that people have to respect the money that it is based upon. When Evander Kane declares bankruptcy on $49 million - is Capitalism even really relevant? While you may respect it, there are plenty of people who do not. Like Madoff, it wasn't about growth - it was all just a cruel game.

[CUG]

I'm not making a rebuttal at all... I'm telling you your arguments are boring and played out. You're no longer holding my interest.

The comment wasn't: "Tell me I choked out your Stockholm Syndrome-fueled arguments without actually saying it" what a weird way to admit you're completely outclassed in every measure. Sad.

[Buster]

The comment wasn't: "Tell me I choked out your Stockholm Syndrome-fueled arguments without actually saying it" what a weird way to admit you're completely outclassed in every measure. Sad.

No. I've just heard all the Marxist nonsense before...and better.