They're like inventory managers. Who manages the human resources or other inventories if there are no inventory managers?
I would say. 1. We already have an inefficient & complex welfare program. 2. Current system is top down directed, so socialist in its nature. 3. everyone is already getting some level welfare in some way, just most are not aware. 4. UBI is not a perfect system, just a cleaner, efficient and more free market welfare system than what we have now. Childcare rebate is one example of welfare that most use yet don’t see as welfare. Property price increases is also another welfare, as government/Central banks have done a lot over the years to support higher property prices. I could list so many example where government/ central bank actions have caused nearly every person to get money in some way. Pension, Austudy, youth allowance, first home grant, etc.. etc…. I guess I should do a poll asking three things. 1. Keep our current overly complex socialist top down social support system. 2. Replace the above with a cleaner bottom up UBI. 3. Have no social support system, so 100% free market.
No, I’m saying that that you are accusing others are being bludgers by assuming they won’t work under UBI.
Then you've entirely misunderstood me. I never said people will bludge under a UBI. I said they get paid to simply eat, shit and breathe ie do nothing, what they do after that defines whether they're going to be considered a worker or a bludger.
Replacing the current style of top-down welfare system based upon perceived need with a UBI is simply introducing a different top-down welfare system based upon perceived need, just more broad-scale. Which if you want to throw around vague terms such as "socialist" is even more "socialist". The concept of a universal welfare payment is hardly a free-market initiative as it's paid by government not the private sector.
I never said it was free market, just it was a more free market version of social support. As the current system choose what you must do (government hoops you need to jump through), while UBI lets the individual choose what they want to do and frees up time with government bureaucracy.
More free-market? I would've thought a universal welfare payment system as opposed to the needs-based welfare payment system we currently have would be even less free-market? I can only guess that your definition of what constitutes the "free-market" differs to mine.
Would you prefer the banking system makes credit available to everyone equally with no conditions attached or would you prefer government to regulate how people obtain credit with conditions attached?
The extension of credit, whether it's government or private sector sponsored should come with conditions attached both from a regulatory standpoint and a financial one. Therefore, there is a place for both banks and governments to issue credit to individuals/organisations/corporations based upon criteria according to whatever the identified conditions are. A universal payment based simply upon whether an individual's heart beats or not is not a sound criteria for the extension of credit, whether from the State and certainly not the private sector.
Imagine how many jobs are created just to means test and regulate all the 100s or 1000s of government welfare or rebate programmes we have today. All those unproductive arbitrary jobs created just to maintain an overly complex government system.
You just described socialism. Or I guess you have a different idea of socialism than me. ESG is one of the socialist programs you love too. Let the rulers control where money flows and what is needed in the world. Best not trust the little people as they are stupid and need to be directed. Maybe that’s true… I guess the free market doesn’t seem to work so well in Africa. UBI will be a fun experiment even if it blows up and takes us all down. At least then you can tell me “I told you so” Assuming we still have internet
I described a guided democracy. Socialism is where the State owns the means of production. There is no place for private banks in a socialist State. Not sure where you get the idea that I "love" ESG? I like debates, but I don't love being misquoted. I like the concept of ESG, as an example I posted something about Chalice (ASX:CHN) ages back where Director's bonuses are linked to successfully achieving environmental criteria. That's free-market environmentalism in practice. How can anyone argue that is a negative move? Or should we just let the regulators clean up the mess after 40 000 year old caves are blown up? But like anything ESG can be a hollow idol diverting credit away from sectors where investment is required eg from Chevron say into overhyped tech stocks. Edit to add: I also like carbon credits, the privatisation of water allocation and other free-market initiatives that incentivise and reward private players to act with conscience in managing natural resources.
We don’t have private banks anymore, only the illusion of one. Any bank today has to abide by strict regulation forced upon them from above in order to obtain a licence to operate. Also we don’t live in a democracy, it’s a republic at best (though I question even that). They are two different ideas and people should understand the difference.
We do have private banks. They are owned by shareholders and operate for profit. They are not owned by government though they have strict regulatory frameworks imposed on them. That's why I said it was a guided democracy. A minarchist State would be the closest thing to a democracy that I'm aware of. Beyond that we have anarcho-capitalism.
I guess all companies in China are private too? They are free to operate for profit as they wish as long as they comply with anything the government tells them to do… Makes you wonder what private even means anymore. George Orwell warned us about Newspeak and distorting meanings of words.
Look on the shareholder register if you want to find whether public companies in China are State or privately owned. You mean words like "socialism" and "free-market"?
The west is much better at propaganda. Our government created an official register to tell everyone what is or isn’t. Just like how our government tells everyone they have a budget and rely on taxes to fund programs. Or what about them saying they want wages to increase on the low end, so they increase immigration which then reduces the wages on the low end. How about that global warming is going to put everything under water, then they do most development near the coast.
