Topic: Crypto, Universal income and cryogenics the redistribution of wealth - page 2. (Read 665 times)

There is also little evidence to suggest that direct cash transfers (such as what UBI would be) cause increases in spending on tobacco, alcohol, or drugs. Most studies have found either no change, or even a decrease in spending on these products following a cash transfer program: http://documents.worldbank.org/curated/en/617631468001808739/Cash-transfers-and-temptation-goods-a-review-of-global-evidence

These are my feelings too. As much as I dislike my tax money being given freely as cash to people not working for it, the alternative looks even worse. Inequality is worsening and poverty is rising. We are looking at hitting 10 billion people within the next 30 years. There already aren't enough jobs to go around, and automation will make things worse. What do we do when half the US is living in poverty without enough food to eat? They aren't just going to suffer silently in the shadows.

I think the environmental issue is now of interest to many millionaires and billionaires around the world.
You also know that in the past few days there has been an Amazon forest fire and the statistics are very surprising, that is the forest fire is increasing every year and the number of trees damaged up to 83% over the previous year. At compound interest, our earth will have no oxygen in 17 years.
That's why billionaires pour money into helping biologists more.

Almost every country in the world in some way guarantees that no one starves, and I wouldn't want to live in one that doesn't - not because I'm afraid it would happen to me, but because such society is likely to be deeply flawed and not a pleasant place to live. UBI is probably not suitable for every country, but I won't be surprised if some of the countries will successfully implement it in the future and even see positive results from it. It's an interesting idea that deserves to be tested, especially as automation replaces more and more human jobs.

is that really your impression of anyone who would receive public benefits? UBI recipients would reflect the actual demographics, meaning the vast majority would be the working poor and middle classes.

are there some bums out there? sure, i'm not sure how to avoid that in society. they existed before welfare systems ever did and they aren't going anywhere.

extremely unequal societies are not happy societies. they eventually reach a tipping point that brings violent upheaval. i have mixed feelings about UBI but unless people are looking forward to living through a violent revolution, something ought to be done to hedge against drastically increasing inequality. in the USA, housing prices and virtually all costs of living are skyrocketing, wages are relatively stagnant---and this is with nearly full employment. meanwhile, the replacement of human labor with automation is moving full steam ahead. does this not scare the shit out of anyone?

Maybe we could decrease the bureaucracy without giving away money to everyone rich and poor. UBI is a strange concept that doesn't function in nature. Why would any society feed parasites who spend nights drinking or taking drugs and days begging and buying supply of alcohol and drugs for the night?


Do you really believe that a mugger who spends his days stealing phones and wallets will stop doing it because he's now getting 200€ from the state? How is it going to decrease crime? Poor people don't steal to live. They usually beg or starve. Criminals usually have more than they need to survive.

Exactly, that's the discussion we need to be having. UBI is intended to replace other welfare programs that are riddled with bureaucracy and are highly inefficient. Social Security spends an incredible amount of money on lengthy application/interview processes, regular case reviews, and fraud investigations, most of which would be eliminated if replaced with UBI.

We also need to consider that minimal income will deter crime and reduce healthcare costs as it will keep people from being completely destitute and homeless. I don't know where other posters live, but the homeless problem is accelerating badly in the US. People can turn a blind eye to it and say they don't want to give these people handouts, but they will end up paying for it one way or another through the healthcare and prison systems funded by their tax dollars.

This is because of the stupid damn definition of social spending.
You don't have the same pensions in the US as you have in France or Germany.
And it gets even worse for a lot of other countries.

For example, I've been employed for 4 years by the military, but since I was no active soldier, I was paying my usual social security tax as every citizen, BUT when I will (if) retire I'm going to enjoy the pension not from the state fund but from the Defence Ministry under what is called again, completely idiotic "social benefits for people served in the army", so it's going to be labeled an f welfare program although in reality, I did pay all my taxes for it just like a normal doctor!

Second, and that is the problem.
Those policies work in economically developed countries.... till they go down!
They worked flawlessly in Venezuela when they were rich, they failed when there were no money left.
Worked perfectly in Sweden till the '80 when social welfare spending nearly send the country bankrupt.

This is the problem with the system, it works while you have money to throw away when you don't...

I agree with you, but this already happens in all Western nations to some degree or another: https://www.oecd.org/social/expenditure.htm
The OECD average is 20% of a country's GDP is spent on social welfare. USA is slightly below this at 18.7%, but there are some European countries which spend much higher amounts on welfare spending. If UBI is going to reduce the amount spent on welfare because of the reason I mentioned above (I'm not saying it will, but if it does) then surely it's worth looking in to?

That's not accurate. Some of the top 10 economies in the world such as Germany and France are also in the top 10 for welfare spending, and also include social housing and socialized medicine.* They are not bankrupt, and in fact both have lower amounts of debt in terms of GDP than countries with much lower welfare spending such as the US and Japan.

*Socialized medicine is cheaper than the US medical system anyway, but don't get me started on that. US tax payers actually pay more in tax towards healthcare than citizens in most European nations, and they also have to spend thousands on health insurance and bills as well.

So it's not money you get freely, it's money you get to pay for stuff....for free.
I love how you twist the words so that it can fit your purpose.

Even if it's rent money, food money, water money, heating money, condom money, beer money that is given to somebody for free it still must be taken from somebody else. Even if we all get this minimum income, not all of us pay for it. And this is called wealth redistribution.
The bigger problem is where will this stop, you will be granted food, then a house, then a car, then a vacation a year, then what?


Again, loving how you toss around numbers but seriously I'm wondering how are poor countries going to afford even those small sums.
Every socialist state that has tried to pay the poor class a living wage, give them free housing and healthcare has failed and gone bankrupt. (DON'T!!!!! even try to bring in the myth of Scandinavian countries here) I really wonder WHO is going to pay for all this. But probably a mirror is going to answer my question in a blink of an eye.


Maybe, but not happening this decade, at least in the EU.
We've just beat the record for the percentage of employed people/population.

I'm not sure how I feel about UBI. A nationwide welfare state isn't something I particularly agree with, but with the number of people increasing and the number of jobs going to decrease due to automation, computing, machines, AI, etc., there needs to be another option for people to obtain money. There are, however, two arguments I've heard made for it which I did like.

Firstly, it stops people "gaming" the system. Everybody gets the same income, regardless of age, disabilities, number of children, and so forth. There are people who know how to squeeze every last drop out of the welfare system, even for things they aren't entitled to. They know the right things to say to get a disability check for a disability that can't be medically disproven. UBI essentially stops this - there is nothing to game. Everyone gets the same.

Secondly, it is cheaper to administer than the current welfare system. The welfare system costs billions just to administer, with huge amounts of bureaucracy and all the means testing, verifications, calculations, investigations, paperwork, refunds, claims, and so forth. UBI eliminates all this as well.

LeGaulois you are still quite wrong and you are failing to understand why you are wrong either. UBI is not money you get freely that makes you live without working while people who work make 3% more than you. No, it is an income that is given to you so you can pay for regular stuff that keeps you alive, like a shelter or food or stuff like that, it is not a lot of money and you can't survive on that, it is like welfare in USA which already exists.

People who work are making 1000%+ more than UBI, assume it like this, in a third world country where someone gets 50 dollars in UBI to be able to live, there will be people making 300 dollars for MINIMUM wage, so people would be making 6 times more by just working in McDonalds, anyone who makes a decent wage would be around 700-1200 dollars range and the rich is still rich like doctors would make 5000+ dollars.

So, in the end UBI would be BARE MINIMUM and not something you can live with, it is just prevention for homelessness and not a way to just not work and live. So it is not like 950 versus 1000, it is more like 100 versus 1000, it doesn't get anything remotely similar to minimum wage, nobody wants to live 10% of McDonalds' wage.

a blunder? Excuse me to not be an economics dictionary lol

But I think I got it and I think the same. Lazy people will stay on a sofa all days. In my country, they have it already (not exactly called the same).
They get a free house, free health insurance, etc... And they earn near the same as someone working (perhaps 3% less) Every month the money hits their bank account. Doing nothing mate. Why would they want to work for i.e. $1000 while they already get $950

if you are unable to work or are penniless then it's simple, go to find a job. It seems normal.

If people already working with a salary will get a 'second salary' I won't refuse free money  

Basically the UBI is designed to take of a lot of stress for the lower class on attaining their basic needs. Even though all of their citizens will receive an equal amount of money from the UBI the only ones who will get to feel the benefit are in lower classes the ones who have a higher standard of living won't even feel a change I even doubt that they will use the money they receive from the UBI will be spent on their basic needs or healthcare and education. The concept of UBI looks good and a lot of case studies proves the benefits of it but for me  I really don't like the idea that all of their citizens will be more dependent on what the government is giving and it actually promotes an unproductive way of living. I would rather see the fund be spent on projects, housing, and education all of which will have a long term positive effect in the economy.


Immortality is a bad idea especially if you consider the fact that we have a growing population with limited resources and jobs. If every person are immortal then you can just see that the rich will be rich forever and the ones who have a higher position with their jobs will stay there forever the late ones who have entered into the game will always be in the bottom. This kind of situation would just do nothing positive in the economy.

There are actually lots of cell lines within the body which generate new cells every day - epidermal stem cells make new skin, hematopoietic stem cells make blood components, intestinal stem cells create new gut lining, and so forth. The real challenge is creating new cells for structure which generally do not create new cells, such as neural or cardiac tissue, endlessly creating new cells without any significant random mutations, and implanting the new cells in to the target organ. There's a lot of interesting research going on right now using stem cells to repair tissue damage following heart attacks and strokes, for example.

As more and more diseases are cured, trauma will become an ever larger proportion of worldwide cause of death, although developments like self driving cars will prevent some of these deaths.

It's a side effect of better healthcare, sanitation, vaccinations, and so forth. When >50% of children died before adulthood, it was natural to have much larger families to increase the odds of having some surviving children. As childhood mortality rates fall, so do birth rates. However, birth rates in developed countries generally sit around about replacement rates, but birth rates in developing countries still remain high. World population continues to increase too quickly. We are already looking at hitting 8 billion people within the next 5 years, and probably 10 billion by the middle of the century.

Too many people, not enough jobs, not enough physical resources (food, water, energy, etc.)

The universal basic income is enough money to be able to pay for goods that is basically your typical survivor needs, so its not like communism. This is more about being able to pay for your food, water, electricity and so forth type of needs, if you want a lambo this is not the way to go, hence this is universal BASIC income. You don't even have to have a job, you can be unemployed or a CEO, in the end everyone should have enough money to pay for the simple stuff that makes you stay alive.

Some people mistake it with communism where everyone earns the same sort of salary and lives the same life but this is not like that, this doesn't cap your high side, you can be bill gates and earn billions every year, however in this nobody becomes too poor to become homeless.

Well, you can't achieve that without having a way of replacing or teaching the body how to generate new cells, at the same time teaching him it's not good to keep regenerating some others like the bone growth centers and if you manage that, yeah you're on the path to immortality.
But in my short to medium experience, seeing hundred of crushed, stabbed, burned and so on bodies in the emergency unit I'm willing to bet that immortality would come when we ditch this body and go to the full "ghost in the shell" scenario. Not that when eventually this might happen will be of any interest to us.



The current model is obsolete because were reaching the limits of substantial growth.
Well, robots would help us make cheaper booze, but even if you manage to sell it at 1c/l you won't be able to sell more than 70 billions beers a day, right? Nor you will manage to sell more than 10 billion condoms. Of course, the numbers I put are overly exaggerated but you get my point, there is simply no more room for huge growth.
We've found out all the continents, we've managed to reduce the working hours from the full day to 8 hours, we almost nullified the time for chores with all the automatic cleaners/washing machines so on and on, at this point in order for us to do more stuff and use more services and generate growth we eithe have to ditch sleep or we must increase the population.
But, till when?
Even 3rd world countries are saying a reduction in births in areas with a better economy and with a better education.
It's not only Europeans that stopped having the 2.5 children, I had a co-worker from Morroco, he was 42 and had only a daughter, yet he told me he was from a family of six, the whole non-sense of giving birth to tens of children will soon stop even in Africa and India, people are starting to have fewer children in order to take better care of each of them, it's natural.

Sooner or later we will have to deal with zero economic growth or even worse, there is no way to avoid it.


There are plenty more, some even mentioned int he article, almost every EU country has one disguised under some other name, even us has the EITC.
But reading the article...
I know that except the capital the prices are dirt cheap compared to Prague or Munchen but 60 euros? It's not covering even a monthly bus and bahn subscription.
How the hell are you supposed to feed yourself, forget clothing and washing with 2 euros a day? 

This is correct. Romania is one of the few countries in the world that I think has a guaranteed income scheme. Our's is called Venit de Baza Neconditionat and according to some reports, this is helping poverty go down in our country.
Take a look at this article : http://business-review.eu/news/is-poverty-declining-in-romania-the-number-of-basic-income-receivers-dropped-12-pct-last-year-but-experts-dont-see-less-poverty-162277

Didn't expect you to make this blunder.

As others have pointed out. It is not what you say.

Universal Basic Income is something that everyone will receive no matter what. You can of course be a doctor and make more money or a teacher or anything that your heart pleases. But that's your job. What happens if you are unable to work or are penniless? You become a drag on your relatives or the government.

At such instances, the basic income is something that you would receive in your bank account would be like free money that the government would provide you so that you can afford to live.

On paper this can be a game changer, although there are many pros and cons to this system.

Cryonics is not the same as immortality, and it's not a building block for immortality, it's just some rich people hoping that they can be frozen and awaken in the future, when their life can be prolonged (up to eternity in best case). The connection with crypto and UBI here lies in simple observation that all those things are novel/futuristic, so some wealthy people like to donate to those causes. I really doubt there's some secret plan going on that involves all three technologies.

Depends.

Immortal doesn't necessarily mean "eternal youth". People die from either a pathological process, such as a disease or trauma, or from simply "old age", which is an accumulation over time of cell death, telomere depletion, DNA mutations, mitochondrial mutations, failure of cell mechanisms, accumulation of toxins, and so forth. Although we already have immortal human cells in labs all around the world (see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HeLa if you are interested), in terms of a person it is going to be far easier to cure "disease" than it will be to cure "old age". Long before we see immortality we will see average life spans increasing well above 100, and even if we ever do reach immortality, it is likely going to be far, far longer before we can maintain young, youthful bodies for a significant period of time. There will be far, far more elderly and retired people in the future.

Couple this with the fact that the number of available jobs is going to decrease. As technology, machinery, automation, artificial intelligence, etc., all develop, then more and more jobs or parts of jobs will be performed by computer or machines. The number of jobs available for humans is going to decrease. We are looking at a future with more non-working elderly, fewer jobs, and more working-age unemployment.

It will be untenable to continue to tax the ever decreasing number of workers more and more to pay for the ever increasing number of unemployed and retired. Given all this, the current economic model will be obsolete as you say. I won't profess to know what the answer is, but unless you don't care about widespread poverty, there will need to be a significant change.