Topic: Crypto, Universal income and cryogenics the redistribution of wealth (Read 693 times)

If they convert, it will still not be as cryptocurrency in quantity because coin is more expensive than fiat. For instance, just a bitcoin is worth $10,000. That means $10,000 will be converted into just a bitcoin  But meanwhile, poor will keep buying, hodling and getting into the level of being rich.

This is basically just a topic about how humanity could live longer, how having more people on earth (if you live longer on average the population will automatically go out) would hurt the economy because there are not enough money to go around, and how we can solve that issue with UBI and how crypto works towards that solution and how we can make sure people who are at their elder years could not work and still live.

Remember, right now on average people retire at age around 60-70 at most, there are very few people who retire after 70, on really elite countries there are people working at those ages but usually in other nations people do retire earlier even as early as 50 in some nations. It means if the life goes to 100+ that means people will not work but still have to live for another 30+ years and we need to find a way for that.

Cryptocurrency in the future will change the trend of the economy around the world, but it will not redistribute wealth. Because the rich will soon convert FIAT into Cryptocurrency before that happens. The rich will not foolishly accept their wealth as a pile of worthless antiques.

The solutions that you are trying to suggest are not really solutions at all, governments are already hiring people for bureaucratic positions that are not really needed and that could be easily replaced by computer software, as such the size of the government is growing and the only way they have to pay for this is to keep printing money, the solutions that you are giving will only work if we had an infinite amount of wealth but we don't and this is not going to change anytime soon.

Never going to happen, unfortunately. As long as banks and the government can create money out of thin air to suit their own needs whenever they like, fiat currency will constantly devalue. Perhaps some wide reaching banking reforms and laws could reduce the rate of inflation, but over a long enough time frame, all fiat trends towards zero. I saw a great quote somewhere on twitter earlier this week but I can't find it now, which was along the lines of "Even it bitcoin doesn't make you rich quick, it stops you getting poor slowly".

This is only going to get worse over the next few decades as population increases and automation reduces the number of jobs. Relying on the government to spend tax money to create new jobs for which there is no real need isn't really that different to the government just handing out money in the form of UBI.

You would not say there no solution to poverty eradication, there is , we can only not attain it 100 percent and eradicating poverty is not all about those distribution of money, first for poverty to be eradicated, inflation must be curtailed because this is one of the thing that makes people's earning not to be enough, this poverty we are talking about is not only tied to amount of income that comes to a person, but what the amount can buy and what makes it not enough is just inflation.

Government also needs to create some industries where people can work and then earn money, there are so many graduates that has left school and do not have job to do, if there is something to do, at least the wealth will get to them from there and they don’t have to use force to gather it.

Universal income will fix that. Also those that are working will get it. For everyone the same. For Trump the same as for the beggar. Both get exactly $xxx and not a cent more. That is the point. Right now some get a lot and most get nothing. In my country people dont marry just so they are single parent to get money from country. Now that will stop since all kids will get the same.

It seems to me that those that are proposing UBI do not understand supply and demand, if you give 12k to poor people then they will be able to afford things they could not before, on the surface this seems good, but this raises the demand not the supply, and we all know what happens next right? The price of everything begins to go up and soon those 12k are not enough to meet your basic needs and more money will be needed to be given to them the next time creating a vicious circle, the truth is there is not an easy solution to the poverty issue and people do not want accept this sad fact.

Because I'm tired to read about stuff to help the poors to get free money but nothing for those working.
Nah, seriously, it's because in my country we have something similar already taking place, the 'Universal Income' and I supposed the UBI is the same thing more or less.

And we have also another program similar to the universal income. In which people get free money to stay on the sofa all days long. Wake up at 11.00 am from Monday to Sunday in an almost free house. I call them 'Full-time tourists'. Get them a job they will refuse anything. Sure, since they earn near the same as someone working full time. Without to bother to work. When they will be retired, they will again receive a pension from govt. Those who work will get almost nothing. Great life.

Whatever, about UBI. If a day it's really implemented, it sounds fair to ask something in return. Not sure what and how, maybe working 1 hour per day, cleaning dog's shits in the streets, to help in the retirement residences, etc. So many things to do, and in return the government could reduce some costs doing this

That's exactly what UBI proposals say. It is supposed to be the minimum required for someone to meet all their basic needs, which includes food, water, shelter, and basic necessities and essentials for living. This level of income is known as the "poverty line". In the US, this currently stands at $12,000 per year on average, but will obviously vary widely from state to state and city to city.

What you are suggesting isn't the same as what UBI proposals say. The whole point of UBI (not that I'm saying I necessarily agree with it) is to replace any and all other social welfare systems and provide enough for people to live on, albeit eagerly.

Guys you are forgetting one real important thing here, UBI is not suppose to be a wage or a salary, it can't be that high and it can't provide you with enough money to live without working, it has to be low enough that you do not starve to death, we are talking about maybe 200 bucks a month, do you really think a person in USA can live on 2400 a year? Of course not, you won't be able to live in a house with that kind of money and find rent let alone have enough for anything else.

Reality is if you do not help people then they will find a way for themselves, they may start drug dealing, they may become homeless drunks, they may steal, but in the end no human would just let themselves starve to death, certainly not their family if there is one. So with this you are telling them "look we want to help you out a bit but you gotta help yourself out as well" and bring that "almost on the verge of criminal life" people to "finds a McDonalds' job" levels.

Society does not work like that, if everyone get equal income irrespective of their hard work then you will find many people who will go after causes like we see today. The advocates of universal basic income are people who go to universities who think that they will earn six figure jobs after completing some random subjects which does not have any value in the job market and they set out to fight the world .
No one is equal and competition drives the world.

I first heard about research about immortality from a documentary about the Russian billionaire Dmitry Itskov who is conduction his own research and have spent billions for his mission and many are doing that kind of research.

Yes, in terms of both inflation and Purchasing power of goods.
If everyone is assumed to earn 1000 USD a month onwards, the purchasing power of 1000 USD would drop (even excluding base inflation).
Let's say I'm a business selling groceries, I may be tempted to raise prices of goods as I can assume people have a higher level of disposable income to buy. This is specially true for low-value commodity goods. Nowadays the lowest expected baseline is zero and the average is the medium salary.
Inflation-wise, this decrease in PPI has been happening already for decades (just compare the purchasing power of 1000USD in 1960 vs now).
I just think it would compound to the issue at a faster rate. I also agree there are mitigation measures that could be enacted to control rapid inflation, price & rent controls, and more. But those measures might not be universally well received by people and business alike (generating other unintended effects).

Indeed, we could set a reasonable amount. If we consider 1000 USD / month in all states, then one of the incentives is for people that don't want to work to move to places where they can maximize their purchasing power (eg: countryside, away from metropolitan centres). This could actually decreased homelessness in big metropolis and decrease pressure on services & infrastructure. All states would need to agree, and some would be subsidized by the Federal Government if needed (UBI would be handed at a federal level I assume). If so, one of the unintended consequences could be an increased asymmetry between states over time (due to the change of demography and internal economic migration incentives).

Ok, this one can be tricky and I think implementation details would be critical for UBI to work.
For example, if truly unconditional per person and in absence of other welfare programs, then we create a strong incentive to have kids and maximize income per household (not necessarily provide and educate them in the best way). Assuming the best higher education remains private an unaffordable for many, a new generation could grow up with lower skills for the job market, increasing the chances they would rely on UBI and keep unemployed (another compound effect that could strain the system, as more people would draw funds). This would be great for the birth rate though and to be fair aligns quite well with the polarizing future of the job market with increased automation (very high number of non-repetitive low skills & low number of creative specialized ones).
Another issue would be foreign market distortions (assuming a single country implements it)
One could just receive their UBI, fly to Vietnam or a low-cost country and live quite well. If a sufficient number of people opt to do so, this amount to a lot of capital leaving the U.S. economy to foreign countries with no UBI policy (or one with lower thresholds). Again, I concede that this could be mitigated by travel restrictions for UBIs. Possibly withholding the freedom to travel abroad if unemployed or requiring a certain amount of funds.

Any UBI policy would need to be very comprehensively detailed, in order to be resilient, and would need to consider macro-effects on economics, internal & external emigration & immigration policy, population growth & job market prospects, services planning, business incentives and more.
Trust that the UBI policy would not fail would be the last and critical element of the whole endeavour.
If we get a politician who manages to a least try it in my lifetime, I'll eat my hat and give him a satoshi for good measure 

You mean as a matter of regular inflation? Presumably the base should periodically increase to account for that. I think that's how most welfare programs work.


There's a wide variety of proposals out there based on different goals and principles. I think a reasonable policy would vary by region based on actual living costs. $1,000/month is enough to live well in Alabama. In California, there are homeless people living on the same amount.

Andrew Yang's proposal is just for a flat $1,000/month payment for all US citizens.


It varies by proposal. This is the conventional definition as I understand it:

Although there are credible benefits to an UBI program as a full-scale system intended to replace all other wellfare programs, I do see some major issues at the implementation level. Assuming a private sector still exists and no full automation (not feasible in many centuries unless we get AGI):

1) If everyone earns the same minimum base, why wouldn't individual purchasing power decrease as prices increase for goods, services and rent?
Over time this would reduce the purchasing power of the UBI, unless the amount is increased (extra burden on the state) or other price control measures are implemented (creating distortions and a parallel economy).

2) How exactly does one set the fair handout value of the UBI? Lowest common denominator for sustenance, highest wellfare provided?
Does it vary by region/state? (eg: 1000 USD in NY will not get you a lot, but can be enough for a remote place in the countryside).

3) How 'universal" is it? Would it be distributed to "all" people? Whats the criteria exactly?
All citizens? All legal residents? Can one travel? Is one entitled if living abroad? What about dual citizens? (can one claim multiple UBIs?) Is there a minimum age? (eg: if one has 5 teenage kids, can they collect 5 UBIs on their behalf?). Does it stop at a certain age? (eg: how does it work with seniors receiving pensions)?

Just some food for thought 

LOL why dont you google the term?  Universal basic income is that money that gets collected thru taxes gets evenly distributed to all citizens. Right now those that apply and show they need more help gets more and those that dont apply or have a lot dont get anything.  Like someone that cant walk get a lot of money. Someone that can walk get nothing. Universal basic income would give the same to both.  

What some countries will start with is universal basic income fro kids. So far only kids from poor parents got help. From now on all kids will get help. No matter how rich their parents are. Or how skilled are to apply for help or bend the law in their advantage.

Guys, we need to look at the world so that we can see the real things happening today.  The fact is that a lot of people study and get education in such fields, there are a lot of specialists from them and it is very difficult to find a job for each person with such a profession.  First of all, we can give an example of the humanitarian profession, such as lawyers, psychologists, managers and the like.  I recently looked at statistics, when in different countries, both highly developed and not too developed, there is a great need for working hands, namely, Builders, welders, turners and specialists of other professions.  It is such professions that are very much in demand in society today and there are not enough people.  The fact is that everyone is trying to earn a lot of money while not doing any work, or working without making any work.  You need to think about this too.

That would be great, but it isn't the case at the moment. In many places, a full time job at minimum wage still puts you below the poverty line, with not enough money to live adequately. Several states in the US and some countries around the world have introduced the concept of a "living wage", which is higher than the minimum wage and generally set at or just above the poverty line.

It doesn't need to be a fast process. We have an estimated population growth of 3 billion in the next 30 years, and an estimated 30% of jobs at risk of automation within the same time frame. Widespread unemployment and therefore poverty is inevitable unless something is done.

That's all well and good, but there were jobs in other sectors available for these young people to aim for instead. When the shrinking job market is over-saturated by the growing population, what then?

I don't know about redistribution of wealth but we should understand that .. more or less it's sometimes a thing of luck .. people who invested when it was sold for a dollar are the ones having huge sum of cash and the ones who invested after the big boom are the ones loosing a huge amount of of money ..
It is more or so playing like a gambling he therefore I don't think I would call this redistribution of wealth rather than that we should understand that people who are successful are just few but the ones loosing money are a lot ..it doesn't account periodically for more and more people getting successful...I think that positive time is over ...
We have to wait years ..for an opportunity like that .

And I would prefer to live in a country that doesn't give and doesn't take. What they're doing is taking money that wasn't earned by them and giving it away to those they find suitable. Then the majority, who happens to benefit from basic income, praises them for it. I'd like to live in a country where nobody has to starve because every little thing you do is free of tax and gives you enough profit to live on.
You shouldn't look at automation like it's a fast process. By the time it replaces people's jobs there will no longer be anyone qualified to do them. To give you an example, do you miss blacksmiths? They were mostly replaced and it did not hurt them. You couldn't see thousands of blacksmiths protesting because people are not using work horses anymore. This was such a slow process that young people stopped choosing it as their future profession, knowing the amount of work is declining.
If we didn't need permits from the government for everything it would be much easier for people to sustain themselves.