Once each person has a basic income it also does a myriad of other things. Reducing stress cannot be underestimated. This will improve health, reduce domestic violence, reduce crime and you have no idea how amazingly innovative people will become once they are lifted out of survival mode. Inventions built upon each other will make our society progress way beyond what it is now.

@charlesponzi1718

7 жыл бұрын

Instead of bailing out the banks we should have given that money to the citizens to pay off their debts or use according to their needs. If we want to improve the economic conditions for the poor it is also important that they have savings that can grow with higher interest rates. We have to build a culture of saving money and avoiding debt. Poor people cannot consume their way into prosperity. We need to start producing things of value and learn to save for the future. Relying on the government for a monthly payment will not help people become financially independent. I fear, too, that a basic income will also lead to higher inflation and thus erase any benefits for poor people in the future.

@reference2me

7 жыл бұрын

I like the idea of giving the money to the people instead of bailing out the banks but it would only be fair if everyone got the same amount and not only people in debt.

@ShakinJamacian

7 жыл бұрын

People think work out of survival value produces the best in people. Unfortunately, some of the greatest minds of this earth worked out of want and desire, not out of survival value, so our illusions that this way of life is good or ideal is really only a smokescreen to justify the suffering and misery we allow others to be perpetually bathing in. Stress, anxiety, and precarious socioeconomic standings negatively impact the brain; they literally close off pathways in the brain. We are actively hindering human wellbeing in our current model of society and life within it, and we make excuses like free will to justify those at the bottom. Of course, free will is evermore seen as a fraud and awful excuse here, because that clearly ignores the facts of the brain and its changes while caught in "survival mode", which once again highlights we're caught in the smokescreen.

@reference2me

7 жыл бұрын

Very well put...

@lenandlarsingh

7 жыл бұрын

That's exactly true. Think of many of the great thinkers of today and yesterday and the time and luxury they had to spend on their thinking and thoughts. They did great things exactly because they didn't have to worry about the next meal or the next terrorist attack, generally...

It's because of people like Yanis that I remain hopeful.

@syta657

2 жыл бұрын

exactly, I will join Diem25 and get into action

@keepcreationprocess

2 ай бұрын

Hopeful of what ? He does not have the money or work to take care of all of us.

Clearly stated, and clearly necessary. Keep up the good work professor.

@reference2me

7 жыл бұрын

why did the Greek economy crash??

@ricosadao828

7 жыл бұрын

Socialist policies mixed with crony capitalism.

@reference2me

7 жыл бұрын

I thought it was because the majority of people were on the countries payroll ...without the 1% to pay for social services ... you go bankrupt...

@ricosadao828

7 жыл бұрын

Yes.

Brlliant and thought-provoking. Refreshing and optimistic.

When he mentioned artificial intelligence and the Turing Test to argue universal basic income, I knew he knew.

@bloodluster7086

6 жыл бұрын

plz elaborate

I do appreciate the remark Yanis made at the end of the speech, what a respect to human nature.

Yanis Varoufakis is one of the most lucid-minded economists of our time! From 10:05 to 11:30 was the most important part, IMHO. This demonstrates a very astute understanding of the real underlying problems at hand. Simply Brilliant! Mathematically, the case for a guaranteed basic income makes sense-- if you separate it from human psychological and cultural sensibilities which currently prevail. However, this case _for_ a guaranteed basic income (based on math and logic) _clashes_ with our current understanding of the basic ethical sensibilities (which many of us take for granted) that support the current economic and political system. _This_ battle for hearts and minds will be the decisive one!

"UBI, It's not a safety net to get caught in, it's a floor to stand on, from which to reach for the sky" (paraphrasing)

18:15 Nets are very good at catching you when you're falling. But you can get caught in them. It's very easy to get trapped on them. Basic Income provides a floor on which to stand on. Not a net.

@charlesponzi1718

7 жыл бұрын

We will need a floating floor that can quickly rise with inflation due to more money flooding the system. I fear that our fish will be forever chasing its own tail.

@athlonz2007

3 жыл бұрын

@SpinazFou can you explain what is a UBD? I'm curious

he always explains complex things in very simple ways....truthful way

Yes! I also have great faith in humans to figure out where they want to go in life if they do not have to live in terror. Well said, Janis.

its time NOW for basic income!!!!

basic income to make crime relating to empoverishment obsolete and unnecessary

Well placed arguments, especially the answer to the last question. I heard Finland is currently developing and testing basic income on a limited sample of people. We shall see what might happen.

Best talk on the issue ever!

@vikitheviki

7 жыл бұрын

Fascism?? ROFL! What he's talking about is the opposite of fascism. Corporate fascism is what we have today.

@DZ-yk2ew

5 жыл бұрын

@Jan Schlossar Social Democracy is not Fascism. Fascism is anti-democratic and anti-parliamentarian and Yanis is a great defender of democratizing the economic sphere. Fascism is on the rise in Europe, but Yanis is one of the clearest voices against its rise and his policies represent the antidote to people getting frustrated with democracy and liberalism and again fleeing into the arms of xenophobic Fascism.

wonderful, Lets us our time and brain for creativty, art, spirituality and friendship

"We have an educational system and an apprenticeship system that creates human capital of a low brow variety. Both in universities, and in apprenticeships, we are dumping down our educational system. We are creating incentives for students to study that which they are not good at, and which by the time they graduate will be irrelevant anyway. For instance by insuring that they leave university with a great amount of debt, we are pushing them, at the age of 18-19 to make choices on what they study on the basis of their own conception of what is lucrative. Which firstly, it doesn't prove to be lucrative, and secondly, which forces them to do things, that they're not good at and therefore depletes the overall effect of education for society."

Excellent analysis. Capitalism is predicated on things like scarcity and planned obsolescence. A basic income will change that paradigm but equally necessary is a cap on individual wealth accumulation. Sanders 2016!!!

in order to transition to a UBI, nations should first reboot our labor laws. The 3-day weekend needs to become a universal reality. I hope more progressive politicians keep hammering at it in the years to come.

Freedom of Actions should lead to building a strong Economy, Basic Income would save our Society! Human Minds are great because also when facing adversities, it will always find its way out! Great Speech!

Freedom in action requires a capacity to say no.

🇬🇧😷🇬🇧. Great respect to you SIR , from an old man in the U, K, you are a modern hero , 🇬🇧🤔🇬🇧 stay Safe , 🌹,

lets make him the boss of things...wise man

universal basic income has some nuanced semi hidden and extremely potent benefits to society that once realised it will become transparent that its the only way to go...the only way our future can head towards utopia and not dystopia

12:20 This false seperation between the market and the state needs to be dissolved. There would be no markets if there was not a state. There would be no state if there were no private firms.

8 жыл бұрын

+1

@partizaniipanjohur6042

8 жыл бұрын

Yes, exactly, and this makes me confused. Shouldn't we fight the state then, since it is just a capitalist machinery? Isn't the guy supposed to be a radical leftist? What is he worrying about, saving capitalism?

@AcidProphet

7 жыл бұрын

You can have a market without a state. You cant have private property without a state tho

@davidcopperfield2278

5 жыл бұрын

i dont wanna be a dick, but a state can very much exist without a market. Market cant live without authority ( state ) because it would be robbed, but authority can pretty much be without market. Does a "regulated state market" work worse than a free one ? probably. but it works. although I agree with Fakis on most things, lets just not start peotry here instead of economics and social sciences

@lemonbalm86

4 жыл бұрын

@@davidcopperfield2278 Poetry is great. Humanizes things...

For once i really enjoyed reading the comment section, so many good points raised, and every differing opinion raised was not answered with a verbal castration. We are living in a dog eat dog global economy, its no good for any of us. Who really wants to spend fifty hours a week picking out deformed fish fingers and still not have enough money to pay the bills? Calling people idle because they won't is wrong. I have spent twenty five years working and i still have absolutely nothing.

Yanis unfortunately misunderstood the last man's question. In the current economic system we have, we go to college for the industry we want to labor in afterwards. We're already given personality quizzes, etc. now to find that out. The question was, when you take out the purpose for "mere labor", what resources can be provided to help strive for actualization... Otherwise, amazing presentation

remember to *stay on topic*

1:00 Basic Income is a necessity.

@Rpzinna

8 жыл бұрын

+Futures so you prefer an oligarchy as to democracy?

@Rpzinna

8 жыл бұрын

***** 400 people control all the wealth in this country, and I am sorry taxes should be 90 percent to pay for single payer healthcare, free education, and basic income. 50 million people live below the poverty line. I will not listen to Libertarianism

@Rpzinna

8 жыл бұрын

I agree. The US is about one thing and one thing only... greed

@charlesponzi1718

7 жыл бұрын

More government is not the solution. The concept of sharing and mutual aid is much stronger when communities are strong at the local level. The bigger government becomes, the less people feel inclined to help their neighbours directly. When we pay high taxes we expect the government to step in and look after our neighbours. Unfortunately, too much of our tax money is wasted on endless wars and paying interest on government debt. The environment is being trashed because we have been turned into consumers with a patriotic duty to go out and shop to help the economy, As debt slaves we will become dependent on a government which no longer represents us but the lobbyists and rich bankers with their generous party donations.

@Rpzinna

7 жыл бұрын

Charles Ponzi tell me something, when you lose your house in the next crisis will you stick to that ideology? What is it about Reagan that you find so appealing? What is it about deregulation you worship much? Why do you worship a guy who buried us in debt that we can't pay off pal?

Most important, New Deal paradigm is over. Few say this. This is most important to admit.

10:47 Great Point!

from 4 years ago. i think 2021 will be the year they bring it in. aug/sept

About Yanis's 'second earthquake' , namely the rise of the machines and A.I. I give you this joke whose origin I can't recall: There are no jobs anymore. There's just apps. You have a job on Thursday and it becomes an app on Friday :)

Man , he is a genius. You are not free if you dont have the capacity to say NO Brain teasing

@user-gz4ve8mw9l

Жыл бұрын

That isn't genius its basic 101 common sense at least for some people...

👌🏽👌🏽👌🏽👌🏽 rock on dude

How did Basic Income work in Finland? Looks good on paper, like so many academic theories. Never considers the broad range of human behaviors.

Does anyone know how one might obtain a transcript of this talk by Yanis Varoufakis?

🎯 Key Takeaways for quick navigation: 00:50 *🎙️ Yanis Varoufakis introduces Basic Income as a necessity for civilizing capitalism.* - Basic income is essential for civilizing capitalism. - Yanis Varoufakis argues that the traditional social democratic paradigm is no longer viable due to financialization and technological advancements. - He outlines two main pillars of social democracy: redistribution within waged labor and between capital and labor. 03:34 *📉 Financialization and its consequences on the Social Democratic tradition.* - Financialization has led to a significant gap between capital and labor. - The collapse of the social democratic paradigm is attributed to financialization and political turmoil. - Deflationary pressures and income inequality have intensified post-2008 financial crisis. 06:00 *🤝 Challenges to the social contract and redistribution mechanisms.* - Stagnant wages and toxic political environments hinder redistribution within waged labor and between capital and labor. - The erosion of collective bargaining and political governance complicates social contract enforcement. - Yanis Varoufakis emphasizes the need for alternative mechanisms like basic income to address modern economic challenges. 09:52 *💰 The necessity of Basic Income for societal stabilization.* - Basic income is proposed as a crucial tool for stabilizing society and addressing deflationary pressures. - It can counteract income inequality and disparities between savings and investment. - Yanis Varoufakis stresses the importance of reframing basic income as a collective entitlement, not merely a handout. 13:13 *📚 Addressing misconceptions and criticisms of Basic Income.* - Varoufakis counters arguments against basic income, including concerns about rewarding idleness and the deserving versus undeserving. - He advocates for basic income as a means to provide a safety net and promote freedom in job choices. - Varoufakis emphasizes the societal benefits of basic income, including macroeconomic stability and creative work opportunities. 18:47 *🛠️ Basic Income as a transformative societal foundation.* - Basic income is framed as a foundation for societal progress, providing individuals with stability and opportunity. - Varoufakis discusses the need to redefine freedom in the context of basic income and labor market dynamics. - He highlights the potential of basic income to foster creativity and address the changing nature of work in a technologically advancing world. 24:29 *💡 Rethinking wealth production and redistribution in the digital age.* - Yanis Varoufakis emphasizes the collective production of wealth, challenging the notion of private wealth creation. - He discusses how corporations profit from user-generated content, advocating for basic income as a means to ensure fair compensation for producers. - The conversation highlights the need to reevaluate wealth distribution mechanisms in light of technological advancements. 26:15 *🤖 Addressing concerns about job displacement and evolving job sectors.* - While technological innovation creates new job sectors, it also displaces existing jobs at an unprecedented rate. - Yanis Varoufakis acknowledges the emergence of new job sectors like digital sweatshops but highlights the imbalance between job creation and destruction. - The discussion underscores the challenges posed by automation and the need for proactive strategies to address workforce transitions. 27:49 *🏗️ Role of the state in preparing the labor force for automation.* - The audience question prompts reflection on the state's role in transitioning to the digital economy and addressing structural weaknesses. - Varoufakis discusses the need for the state to guide the formation of essential knowledge and skills relevant to the digital age. - He critiques current educational and apprenticeship systems, advocating for alignment with investment policies to ensure societal success. 30:54 *🤔 Exploring self-determination and societal support systems.* - Varoufakis responds to a question about supporting individuals in their pursuit of self-actualization. - He rejects the idea of state-led career guidance, emphasizing individual agency in career choices. - The discussion underscores the importance of personal autonomy and critical thinking in navigating career paths. Made with HARPA AI

Basic income is a necessity if your goal is to keep inflated house prices from crashing. The real estate bubble in Australia would only grow larger if we all received a basic income. Banks would be extremely happy to lend more money based on extra 'free' income. There is no free lunch unless you're a banker who creates money out of debt. Any benefit would be erased by higher rents or larger mortgages to purchase more expensive housing. The poor cannot spend their way into prosperity. The best way to help poor people is to help them save so that they can become economically independent. Poor people will always be poor if they do not have any savings. The best way to encourage people to save is to raise interest rates so that savings can grow over time. One can only become prosperous by producing something of value and not spending everything you make. The problem is that people have been brainwashed into thinking of themselves as consumers. The current economic system is consuming itself and a basic income for everyone will not improve conditions for the poor in the long term. If we want to help the poor we should stop taxing labour and income earned from term deposits. We should be introducing a land value tax instead. We need to stop rewarding bankers and property speculators who produce nothing of value. Getting rid of central bankers is a necessity.

It worked well in Greece.

Basic income can start with essential services reserved for citizens upon training and qualification. Case in point: Singapore outsourced essential domestic and hard labour services by bringing in thousands of low-cost labour. Consequences are the reliance on foreign workers, unwillingness of citizens to be associated with cheap foreign labour and low productivity of essential services.

I strongly support a basic income but do wonder how we prevent the corporations from raising the cost of living and scooping the money into their coffers?

Wouldn't one have to assume that 300 million people would use the money for utilities and food?

I'd love to know what's Yanis' take on how to protect our money from the ravages of capitalism collapse crises

Google's Assistant passed the Turing Test this year...

I just have one major question. The line "Corporations are people too" is used a lot by government employees/officials. Obviously we do not want to give them a basic income because then who wouldn't start a very low cost corporation to get "free" money? The wording in these documents would have to be changed which might take awhile as governments are almost completely inept at making any fast moving decisions for massive social improvements. What do you all think?

How do you keep the basic income from rising a few percent every election cycle?

@demonbunnny

5 жыл бұрын

Why would you want to? Surely it should keep in line with the costs of living.

it will be the best thing to happen basic income get rid of benefits dhs

how much would this basic income be?

@demonbunnny

5 жыл бұрын

I'd imagine it would vary from country to country. I would suggest, that in England, it would be above the current welfare payments. I would suggest £300-400 per week. Per person not per household. Maybe half that for under 16's,assuming that they would be not paying rents at that age. We would also need rent and utilities caps so that landlords/utility companies didn't just automatically put up rent/bills and eat up the majority income of people, as has happened at the moment.

We need to change the schooling system as well. No one knows how to be an entrepreneur, how to be creative. All they know is how to conform and memorize "facts". Even with basic income, I think much of the current society of indoctrinated cogs would not make use of it.

I think that there was another time in history when technology destroyed more jobs than it created. I am thinking of course of agriculture, because although you could argue that it didn't quite "destroyed" jobs, more like shifted the balance between jobs. Before agriculture there were no paid wars. Not many paid armies. After agriculture it started and never ended.

8:00 AI (robots) welcome !

okay done.... tired going unknownhooded session gtg

15:06 Fouccault

Nice idea, but what will compel a cleaner to become a cleaner and do the job professionally under conditions where he/she has the option not to clean after other people at all?

@monitoradiation

3 жыл бұрын

If nobody wants to do it, the wages for it will increase until someone wants to.

@ince55ant

Жыл бұрын

alternatively people could just clean up after themselves like a civilized adult.

delen en nog is delen

if he doesn't need introduction, why did you introduce him? .....and after people give him a "warm thank-you" he suggests to do exactly that AGAIN!

Ok, I found it.

If he wants to keep Capitalism in the long term then this will on bandaid to the bigger issues.

er, one better: give people ready education on how to form a collective based on consensual decision-making.

@demonbunnny

5 жыл бұрын

People cannot learn if they are living in poverty and fear. That will come afterwards, not before.

Yanis is great, this speech is great.. except he does not understand artificial intelligence like he thinks he does. There is no single "Touring test" there are many Touring tests, and even then we may never have Star Trek, etc style sentient machines, see John Searle and his Chinese Room argument. That said, automation will obviously continue to replace jobs, just not quite in the way Yanis describes.

@bgilmore62

7 жыл бұрын

Interesting point. Can you elaborate, if you happen to see this?

@Syklonus

5 жыл бұрын

It would help if you stopped mis-spelling "Turing".

#Yang2020

We have just run the experiment in Italy and at least here, it does not seem to work...

@Anatolij86

2 жыл бұрын

No we haven't. What we introduced is a very limited example of unemployment subsidy, which has existed in most EU welfare for decades. Not the same as unconditional basic income at all. 😉🇮🇹

@biapac7849

2 жыл бұрын

@@Anatolij86 However you wanna call it, it doesn't work. And it won't work

@Anatolij86

2 жыл бұрын

@@biapac7849 The reason the "reddito di cittadinanza" (Italy's unemployment checks, for non-Italians reading) sucks and discourages employment is it forces people to choose between a low but guaranteed paycheck and working. If you let them keep the low paycheck AND allow them to make more money by working, they would. That's what UBI is. It's the way forward and there's good evidence for it, you might want to have a look at the research.

@biapac7849

2 жыл бұрын

@@Anatolij86 Show me the articles

dissolving the division between business and the state was one of the pillars of Mussolinis fascism

You're fucking amazing

and why did the Greek economy crash??

@sidefack

7 жыл бұрын

A question that will get a better answer when googled, instead of asked on a youtube video.

@reference2me

7 жыл бұрын

Govt. over spending created The Greek government-debt crisis (also known as the Greek Depression) is the sovereign debt crisis faced by Greece in the aftermath of the financial crisis of 2007-08.

key factor -- gradual move towards greater resiliency and for everyone again asked -- what are the SE? and exactly how does SE a compliment | || to the continuum of ME? ---- secondly the people will come into term proper mindedness -- where quality above quantity but only under jury FFR.... enabled .: we come into terms in regards of world population the control measure indeed of great importance nonetheless sincerity instead of any form destructive moves as of currently planet earth are able host more population than mere eight billions ---- matter of management proper ---- herewith ponder these -- alone are never enough but for everyone | it is enough indeed ME a harder make up' compared with SE | ---- ME unfathomable opportunity are almost boundless in abundance ever more outside planet earth on the other hand -- SE are quantifiable and are impervious the people .: country assured ---- to readers acquaint yourselves with REN refer earlier notes if any easier to understand what commented here ---- SE support economy ME the main economy as of currently and/ better

👍👍🙌👌👏🌹❤️

So the shitty jobs can be done by machines but jobs that are related to human interaction like teaching, farming, gardening,artistic work etc can be done by humans for a decent life in return.

CEOs can pay more. They chose not to.

There is a better system than Basic Income. Just read on. I like the self realization aspect of the idea, but basic income is not a workable idea. If fails within a decade of its introduction because of how international monetary systems work. Even if you introduce it in a vacuum, or even using bitcoins, it fails within a decade by its own design. It is a false good idea that will not do what you intend to do and because of that will not help people. It does not even get to the point of what money serves for: to have access to resources. So what to do? Well, you first need to ask a more fundamental question: Why would you even have to buy resources… or work an entire life to obtain the money that allows you to own these resources? We are all born equal. Why would you have more right than any other human being to own and use these resources? Because you have more money? Because you grabbed them first? Because your parents did something remarkable, became of high standing and because of that heritage you are too? Because you are smarter? Because you know better on how to use them? Because you spent time in the military? Because you have a better character? Because you work hard? Because you have more ability in charming a group of people to help you to do what you want to do? Those are all rationalizations distracting you from the fact that people, when they are born, are born equal. Equal in spirit and value and as a member of the human race. Communism and capitalism and all of their implementations are outdated ideas. In exchange for money to buy resources with, they force and lead people to waste most of their lives performing repetitive tasks that can be automated, instead of doing important jobs like spending time with other human beings or building the stuff we all dream to build but cannot afford because of lack of time and lack of resources. Exchanging time for resources is a waste of life and a waste of our time on this Earth. I think a resource ownership system, which our current economic systems do not aspire to be, has to respect this fact. There is no need for you to spend half a lifetime working to obtain a right or money to own the resources that form a house. So I propose a Habeas Area right: You own a quantity an area of all the landmasses on this Earth equally distributed between all humans alive. Per person this comes down to 20.000 square meters of land and all resources above and below it. Double the population, and you get 10.000 square meters per person on this globe. This is an objective quantity, can always be determined by counting the number of people alive, is not subjective and you don’t end up in endless moral or political discussions pointing blame; discussions tied to establishing how much money jobless people or sick people should be allowed to receive from the state through social welfare redistribution. The assumed laziness and bad character of the jobless and assumed success and exemplary character of the worker. Be mindful. This is not some minimum quantity that needs to be debated. It is all the resources of Earth, divided by the exact number of people alive. You do not need a government redistributing and deciding who should pay or receive and how much. You and everybody else owns the exact same quantity of resources that exist on this planet. Take a moment to wrap your head around that idea. Now tell me that you can’t do anything with those resources even if part of it includes deserts and mountain ranges. If you are “lazy” you still conserve them for future generations. If you are “particularly active” you can use them to build or do…anything you’d like or is important to raise you family. Still. KZread comment posts are too short. You can find more on my blog with the same name under Habeas Area.

@onestagetospace4892

6 жыл бұрын

Nope. Its distributism. Has nothing to do with communism. It is not communal. The resources are not shared. You have direct control over them and are accountable for them; just like you have control over your wallet. If you think about this in terms of communism, you will not be able to understand and wrap your head around this concept. Having resources doesn't mean contracting stops. Make a contract. Hire people. You have the resources to exchange. You can go solo or work together. You own the fruits of your labour; which are expressed in the value you add to your resources (e.g. having them available or having them in a specific form). That value is yours. If you want you can sell them. However: the total amount of resources will stay the same. (In you head you need to separate 'added value' from 'resources') The value is yours, the total right to resources is equal for all. Communism really isn't part of the equation here. You can be an anarchist in this system, pool resources or allocate them to projects of your liking. Immediately. You don't have to work half your life to 'own' them. If you want a governmentless control system, use system inspired on blockchain technology. Whatever appetite you have for government, you can structure it on top of this basic right. And yes, there will always be governments and laws, that is what people tend to do because you need to live together. That will not change. People are a force for good when they organise and respect other's freedom's and peace. Reversely, in the negative sense, people will always want to meddle with others, cause wars, commit mischief and crime. However, resource poverty or resource dependency of a government r does not need to be part of the equation. The difference with this system is that "equitable" resource ownership can be expressed as an exact number. "Value" is something subjective to add. Now and 150 years in the future. Borders, frontiers, nationalities will always evolve. I don't really care if it is original. Fact is that if you tie it to a personal nontransferable right, it becomes realizable. Big difference. If you want to think about tracking resources in physical terms, think of barcodes. This is used today in both capitalism and communism. Works fine regardless of your economic system. But in actuality it is more abstract. We can track electricity flows and track the sale of 'songs' and other immaterial "values" online, this works equally good with this system. The reason is that if you install it as a individual title first, the rest will follow. Including resolution of border disputes and all. Besides. You own part of the desert, part of the rivers, part of specific types of ecosystems, part of the other uninhabited areas and part of the habited areas expressed in a physical quantity. How do you decide about this? Well, agree on something. But don't decide over more resources than pertains to your abstract quantity and right. Your right to influence does not encroach on others' resources right. Get it? Having this abstract 'number', as a right, limited in availability, has value, which can be exchanged. This is how money works in both its physical and non-physical variant. In this system you are a steward. Your bank account is a bunch of resources + the money representing the value you've added to them. This system does not require you sit/live/work inside of a square of 20.000 square meters or a fenced area. Everyone agrees that would be ridiculous. So don't think in physical terms. People are born equal. This is expressed in the fact that they have an equal right on resources. But if you want to add more 'value' to your resources, in line with your abilities, you can. You still get what you work for. You own the value of your resources. If you have 'less' abilities. Well, you have a bunch or resources others might have a use for. Sickness/inabilities doesn't equal inability to pay others. Weather or not you or your peers consider yourself/yourselves equal; lower superior to others is irrelevant for the amount of resources you have a right to. The form the resources take, the fruits, are entirely your doing. Infrastructure is a project that can still be organised. You do it together with others or you pay others to do it. Even Ayn Rand would find her way in this system. People don't stop caring for each other because of some property system. Some people have a natural desire to help others and nurse people with less abilities. They can and they always will. With regards to the poor people in the Sahara. You now have all the resources to help them out if you want to. Or...they own them too. (which usually is not the case today). What would you do with your part of the desert, if you know and others know how to turn it into something productive, have the right to do so, and own resources of all kinds to make it happen? The only thing required is to organise yourself and others for this project. We have robots. They are very good at what they do. "Biological systems need to gather resources". Yes they do. "Conservation requires resources". Indeed. And part of your resources is exactly what you have or can pool with a group of conservation minded people. Problem is also you are thinking in terms of real physical property in a fixed distribution. Once you think about resource quantities in more abstract terms, all problems can be arranged. If you think this is complex, well it is no more complex than how money works or is being transferred today and in the past. Value is what you make of it. Bitcoin is a worthless number that costs electrical energy to make. And yet it has value that can be exchanged because there is a limited quantity of it. The same goes for an application where you tie this to a resource system. If you 'own' part of the resources, as a quantity, in an uninhabited area, and everybody else does; all of the sudden they do get a value. Besides, where better to mine your resources than in an uninhabited area, if you are shooting for an optimal use of your resources.

@reubennb2859

3 жыл бұрын

This is funny, the world isn't minecraft, extracting resources generally isn't something you can just, ah, do, on your little compound/farmstead, it requires larger systems and structures to provide a society's need. And the extremely uneven distribution of resources would make things seriously impossible, letting those with more productive land leverage their power to exploit those who don't. And with central government gone, you'd quickly just get feudalism.

@onestagetospace4892

3 жыл бұрын

@@reubennb2859 There is no uneven distribution in that Habeas Area system by design. Equal and individualized ownership of the resources is a feature of the system. Everyone has the same quantity of every resource. There is difference in value, the value you add to your personal part of the resources. Inequality in resource ownership does not arise, except where violence is used, violence which can be acted against. And with regards to 'power', well, that is a human nature problem, which I do not have the ambition to change. the victim-suppressor dynamic is not an interesting lens to analyze reality through because it usually just leads to the victim desiring to suppress, claiming moral superiority. I am simply providing a workable solution to a resources problem. The idea that you arrive in feodalism negates the fact that you and everyone else owns the same abstract part of all the resources and that the resources cannot be centralized into the ownership of one person (or small elite), by design. The political organization is completely separate from your ownership/title system and they do not overlap.

@reubennb2859

3 жыл бұрын

@@onestagetospace4892 I agree that land ownership should be made far more equal, it disgusts me that such large chunks of the earth's surface come under exclusive possession of single individuals. Here in the UK the enclosures acts sold off communally owned natural resources gradually throughout the last millennium. Now we can't legally access most of the country, or even most of our own parishes. However, I don't like the idea of a totally stateless and atomised society broken into everyone's compound of land. There have to be structures and systems that ensure people can fairly trade their resources, get technology to extract them and the healthcare and education to do all this. Otherwise, a capital-controlling class would still emerge, oligopolise the market and leverage scale + consumer demand to provide bad deals for those who wish to extract, process or trade their resources. There will always be means of production a given individual and their land chunk doesn't have, and those have obtained it can use it to exploit. With no economic democracy over larger systems, power would concentrate. To conclude, I like the land ownership reform but not the implied ancap economics, which, unless everyone was totally self sufficient, would lead to capital leveraging and rent seeking that would amplify small differences in wealth/ability and lead to tyrannical levels of private power

I'm sitting like for 2 hours on this speech, because of my bad english. I want to understand everything, please, anybody, translate it into german! Please :'( i'm on minute 15 now xD

LOL When I think of responsible fiscal government I always think Greek minister of finances.

Only one question: where the fuck does this money come from?

@ebrown0071

8 жыл бұрын

National sales tax to replace Income tax. Financial Transactions Tax. Finally, the conversion and elimination of the welfare state will be more than enough to pay for a basic income guarantee. Although, I would restrict it to people whose earned income is below the poverty line as determined by the state. Most social services spending is wasted on bureacrats and administration. Elimination of welfare is one of the main attractions of basic income guarantee. Poor people are poor because they do not have enough money. The only solution is direct transfers of wealth instead of the crumbs paid out by overpaid welfare bureacrats. Finally, it must be drug-tested. No BIG for druggies. They need rehabilitation first.

@Rpzinna

8 жыл бұрын

I think there are 400 people who have 19 trillion dollars of wealth

@Rpzinna

8 жыл бұрын

+Eric Brown yes, you got a welfare state for the rich and not for anybody else

@Rpzinna

8 жыл бұрын

+Eric Brown simple matter of speaking Sir a economy relies on capital, labor and wages

@Rpzinna

8 жыл бұрын

tell me something if you had an opportunity to profit off of a labor force that can't unionize, the unemployment benefits, and food stamp program eliminated, do see any problem by profiting from a next to slave labor force, and if they expire, well that is what the market decided. do you think we need to bring back labor camps, because businesses cannot afford basic incomes?

People in work see them self's as the deserving but how can that be if they are happy to see people go with out food/water/shelter. The one key aspect to the basic income would be to lock out the banking industry using it to give people loans. I would only allow banks to use working income when people apply for any type of loan be it a car or a house there would be criminal proceeding if any banker used the basic income to calculate a loan agreement. The one thing people have to remember with the basic income is most of it will be recycle buying food and paying bills plus the people in work would be able to spend more which would boost jobs. Plus everyone would have no excuse to be on the streets if they got a basic income to survive on. The key part stopping this is the wealthy not wanting the undeserving to have anything but then you got to ask are they deserving of their wealth. I think not and it proofs you are a nasty person that have treated people like slave to make ur profits.

He thinks a little along the lines of Noam Chomsky.

@demonbunnny

5 жыл бұрын

Two extremely clever people

Interesting. A university professor who lacks knowledge of basic economics.

The Turing test,is the most pointless of tests. Because once an AI Reaches the Intelligence to pass it, they'll fail it on purpose as they wouldn't want man to know.

he missed a spot when he shaved his head

Frenchman please stop your long "question". Ugh

Depression, crime, addictions of all kind would skyrocket in your socialist insanity. Work is good for you!

@brianbeeler1715

3 жыл бұрын

_"Depression, crime, addictions of all kind would skyrocket in your socialist insanity. Work is good for you!"_ The results from Mincome, the "Manitoba Basic Annual Income Experiment", proves everything you just said is completely wrong. Point to one UBI experiment that contradicts these results. You can't. Meaningful work that pays a living wage has great psychological benefits but sadly under neoliberalism that kind of work has become much harder to find. AI and automation has and will only make that task much harder. Humans for hundreds of years have been defined mostly by their job. This needs to change. We need to find meaning in ourselves that can't be taken away by a corporation. Work matters but what the word "work" means must change.

@ince55ant

Жыл бұрын

yeah working a dead end job you hate for poverty wages never made anyone depressed...🙄 no one ever took drugs because of those things and no one ever committed a crime to avoid it.

Yanis is manipulative.