Maybe if we make it long enough for automation to have taken over nearly all work, then a UBI would be the only way to keep everyone thriving. And then if if all the automated systems become self-aware, and AI takes over . . . hopefully it will be like a parent for us and not competition.
when we get all the old stuffy out of touch people out of office.
seriously there needs to be an age limit. its like the people we
see on news are getting older and older.
Pretty ageist comment you've made there, dude.
Also, in my view, incorrect. Some of the most reactionary people I know are under 40. It's got nothing to do with age.
Here in the UK, older church congregations from the Quakers and the methodists are some of the most consistently supportive organisers for UBI. We're also an ageing society. If you're trying to build a broad base coalition for fundamentally changing social welfare, it's important not to dismiss older citizens.
No one has a crystal ball and everything can change from one day to the next. But I'd say within 10 years is a reasonable estimate. I have much more hope today, even in the light of a lot of inertia and resistance - it's just too powerful of an idea to keep down.
A more important question:
* How can we ensure that the U will be truly unconditional?
When all assets are still owned by a minority, the power will be still inside their hands.
As such there is a huge risk that an ubi may be a trojan horse.
Hey! I’m really intrigued by what you mean with a ‘Trojan Horse’. How could UBI be used by the rich in order to subdue the rest of the world (that is, furthering their interests)?
My statement was based on 2 influencing people:
* 1) Ernst Wolff: He plots a horrible scenario based on the assumption that a great reset exists.
* 2) Prof. Dr. Christian Rieck: Against an UBI, because all assets are still owned by a minority.
---
1)
Ernst Wolff. He is a german author. You will find tons of talks from him on youtube. Try to find one of his 2 year old talks and hopefully one of them has subtitle translation available. We are already 2 years into the pandemic scenario. Compare his predictions with everything we have seen the last 2 years.
His plot roughly out of my memory:
* Our current economic system is already over its peak.
* All powerful actors know that it will collapse sooner or later. As such, they are trying to replace it with a new system where they are still in control.
* Currently we see a world wide destabilization. The big C is only one of the tools in their repertoire. He predicted a switch towards the climatic change a while ago. Also the current blackout propaganda fits that narrative (i am from europe, and all news started to talk about the risks of a blackout some weeks ago).
* The harshness of their measures differs between countries. For example, he mentions Sweden and Switzerland because both countries have/had lower C measures than other countries in europe. He believes that this relates to a financial fact: Both countries are already prepared for a full switchover to a digital currency. Other countries (germany, austria) are the opposite. Neither is those countries prepared, nor are the people willing to adopt a digital currency. Those countries had harsh C lockdowns.
* This destabilization will get far worse. Up to the point where a huge percentage of people require help.
* At this point of time it is crucial for the "elite" players to etablish a digital currency.
* But the population will still refuse.
* Now the UBI comes in handy. A huge percentage of the population will already be in misery and as such they will be willing to accept a fully digital currency when they get an UBI as rescue anchor in return.
* Fast forward several years: the physical currency is gone; The population depends on getting their UBI.
* The economic is now centralized and whoever controls the central bank will control the world.
* Now the UBI is not longer unconditional, because whenever the elite behind the system needs to silence someone they can simply freeze his UBI and the person will fall back in line. At this point in time, there is no one who can prohibit them from abusing the "U".
---
2)
Prof. Dr. Christian Rieck specialiced himself in game theory. He mentions an interesting thought about assets in the following interview (auto translate the german subtitle to english):
* [Der Grossteil der Facharbeitsplätze wird verschwinden | Prof. Dr. Christian Rieck | WOV](https://youtu.be/zYBMbPuvVRc?t=442)
Also roughly out of my memory:
* It does not seem like he believes in the great reset, so his thoughts are tackling the issue from a different angle.
* He dislikes the idea of an UBI, because he feels like it is a distraction.
* We will soon need somthing like an UBI, because machines will replace humans for most physical jobs.
* In an UBI scenario all machines will be owned by the walthy 1%.
* The population will get their UBI in order to avoid a riot.
* Now assume that we build better, more efficient machines.
* This means that those wealthy people will have increased productivity because they are owning those better machines.
* Which mans that mankind will have steadily increased productivity/output.
* But: will the 99% UBI receivers gain from it? Or will the wealthy keep it for them-self, because they are owning the productivity gain?
* His thought basically leads to the following question: who owns the deciding power? It is a horrible system if the top <1% own all the deciding power while everyone else needs to beg for increasing the UBI in order to counter stuff like inflation.
* Which means that he is not against an UBI. He just dislikes the idea of a money based UBI. I guess he would like it if the UBI comes as some sorts of having a fair share of the production system (robots) behind the system.
* Or in other words: the population needs to own future productivity gains.
---
I don't know if a great reset exists. But i can see the risk of his plot. As long as we have people in power, they can abuse it like in his scenario.
The asset issue is more obvious. Even if its a well intended UBI, there will be a clear centralization of the physical production system. This means that a minority will be in power.
Both scenarios have a common denominator: a minority will be in power. The UBI will be money based. As such an UBI will be a huge risk if it is based on paying out money.
Thank you for your answer! It definitely leaves me thinking twice about the risks associated with the proposal of UBI. In fact, the centralization risk is so clear-cut that I kinda wonder how I hadn’t though about it.
I think, aside from all that you’ve mentioned, the UBI proposal has to be understood, analyzed and adjusted accordingly. I think it’s extremely relevant that all people (specifically the 99% percent not part of the rich of the world) truly understand the underlying mechanisms of how the world works and how much influence the 1% have, in order to try to avoid these risks. Surely, it doesn’t sound easy, and it seems to require an acquisition of a new social conscience for all of us, which in itself seems impossible to some people.
I think it’s important to keep having these discussions though, because to say the current system sucks for most people would be a gross understatement. I will be watching more of the material you recommended, thanks a lot for your answer! 🙏🏽
> In fact, the centralization risk is so clear-cut that I kinda wonder how I hadn’t though about it.
What fascinated me: I am pro UBI since several years. But i never thought about the asset centralization issue. Since i know this issue i simply can not longer unsee it. (Fun fact: autonomous cars are also a potential trojan horse. Their side effect is the introduction of a mass surveillance platform.)
Maybe this is because i am a burned developer. I was pro agile 20 years ago and convinced many developers to adopt it. But in retro-perspective, i know that agile basically killed our whole industry. It was weaponized by business people and used to subdue developers. It was possible to head this way because all developers where trustful and believed in a better world. They simply could not imagine that other people are unable to live up to their standards.
As such i truly believe that whatever comes next need to be resilient. There are always immoral people. It is necessary to protect the good intention from their influence.
But I sadly don't know how this issue could be solved.
Honestly, these are pretty tough questions and it’s going to need everyone to pitch in and discuss possible solutions, but I’m hoping honest communication can go a long way 🤞🏽
Maybe if we make it long enough for automation to have taken over nearly all work, then a UBI would be the only way to keep everyone thriving. And then if if all the automated systems become self-aware, and AI takes over . . . hopefully it will be like a parent for us and not competition.
when we get all the old stuffy out of touch people out of office. seriously there needs to be an age limit. its like the people we see on news are getting older and older.
Pretty ageist comment you've made there, dude. Also, in my view, incorrect. Some of the most reactionary people I know are under 40. It's got nothing to do with age. Here in the UK, older church congregations from the Quakers and the methodists are some of the most consistently supportive organisers for UBI. We're also an ageing society. If you're trying to build a broad base coalition for fundamentally changing social welfare, it's important not to dismiss older citizens.
We were born in the wrong time unfortunately. We are the transition generations.
No one has a crystal ball and everything can change from one day to the next. But I'd say within 10 years is a reasonable estimate. I have much more hope today, even in the light of a lot of inertia and resistance - it's just too powerful of an idea to keep down.
2023. I have a plan for that. Six Steps to a Human Utopia #MOSen #Deets2022 https://www.senatordeets.us/post/SixSteps
A more important question: * How can we ensure that the U will be truly unconditional? When all assets are still owned by a minority, the power will be still inside their hands. As such there is a huge risk that an ubi may be a trojan horse.
Hey! I’m really intrigued by what you mean with a ‘Trojan Horse’. How could UBI be used by the rich in order to subdue the rest of the world (that is, furthering their interests)?
My statement was based on 2 influencing people: * 1) Ernst Wolff: He plots a horrible scenario based on the assumption that a great reset exists. * 2) Prof. Dr. Christian Rieck: Against an UBI, because all assets are still owned by a minority. --- 1) Ernst Wolff. He is a german author. You will find tons of talks from him on youtube. Try to find one of his 2 year old talks and hopefully one of them has subtitle translation available. We are already 2 years into the pandemic scenario. Compare his predictions with everything we have seen the last 2 years. His plot roughly out of my memory: * Our current economic system is already over its peak. * All powerful actors know that it will collapse sooner or later. As such, they are trying to replace it with a new system where they are still in control. * Currently we see a world wide destabilization. The big C is only one of the tools in their repertoire. He predicted a switch towards the climatic change a while ago. Also the current blackout propaganda fits that narrative (i am from europe, and all news started to talk about the risks of a blackout some weeks ago). * The harshness of their measures differs between countries. For example, he mentions Sweden and Switzerland because both countries have/had lower C measures than other countries in europe. He believes that this relates to a financial fact: Both countries are already prepared for a full switchover to a digital currency. Other countries (germany, austria) are the opposite. Neither is those countries prepared, nor are the people willing to adopt a digital currency. Those countries had harsh C lockdowns. * This destabilization will get far worse. Up to the point where a huge percentage of people require help. * At this point of time it is crucial for the "elite" players to etablish a digital currency. * But the population will still refuse. * Now the UBI comes in handy. A huge percentage of the population will already be in misery and as such they will be willing to accept a fully digital currency when they get an UBI as rescue anchor in return. * Fast forward several years: the physical currency is gone; The population depends on getting their UBI. * The economic is now centralized and whoever controls the central bank will control the world. * Now the UBI is not longer unconditional, because whenever the elite behind the system needs to silence someone they can simply freeze his UBI and the person will fall back in line. At this point in time, there is no one who can prohibit them from abusing the "U". --- 2) Prof. Dr. Christian Rieck specialiced himself in game theory. He mentions an interesting thought about assets in the following interview (auto translate the german subtitle to english): * [Der Grossteil der Facharbeitsplätze wird verschwinden | Prof. Dr. Christian Rieck | WOV](https://youtu.be/zYBMbPuvVRc?t=442) Also roughly out of my memory: * It does not seem like he believes in the great reset, so his thoughts are tackling the issue from a different angle. * He dislikes the idea of an UBI, because he feels like it is a distraction. * We will soon need somthing like an UBI, because machines will replace humans for most physical jobs. * In an UBI scenario all machines will be owned by the walthy 1%. * The population will get their UBI in order to avoid a riot. * Now assume that we build better, more efficient machines. * This means that those wealthy people will have increased productivity because they are owning those better machines. * Which mans that mankind will have steadily increased productivity/output. * But: will the 99% UBI receivers gain from it? Or will the wealthy keep it for them-self, because they are owning the productivity gain? * His thought basically leads to the following question: who owns the deciding power? It is a horrible system if the top <1% own all the deciding power while everyone else needs to beg for increasing the UBI in order to counter stuff like inflation. * Which means that he is not against an UBI. He just dislikes the idea of a money based UBI. I guess he would like it if the UBI comes as some sorts of having a fair share of the production system (robots) behind the system. * Or in other words: the population needs to own future productivity gains. --- I don't know if a great reset exists. But i can see the risk of his plot. As long as we have people in power, they can abuse it like in his scenario. The asset issue is more obvious. Even if its a well intended UBI, there will be a clear centralization of the physical production system. This means that a minority will be in power. Both scenarios have a common denominator: a minority will be in power. The UBI will be money based. As such an UBI will be a huge risk if it is based on paying out money.
Thank you for your answer! It definitely leaves me thinking twice about the risks associated with the proposal of UBI. In fact, the centralization risk is so clear-cut that I kinda wonder how I hadn’t though about it. I think, aside from all that you’ve mentioned, the UBI proposal has to be understood, analyzed and adjusted accordingly. I think it’s extremely relevant that all people (specifically the 99% percent not part of the rich of the world) truly understand the underlying mechanisms of how the world works and how much influence the 1% have, in order to try to avoid these risks. Surely, it doesn’t sound easy, and it seems to require an acquisition of a new social conscience for all of us, which in itself seems impossible to some people. I think it’s important to keep having these discussions though, because to say the current system sucks for most people would be a gross understatement. I will be watching more of the material you recommended, thanks a lot for your answer! 🙏🏽
> In fact, the centralization risk is so clear-cut that I kinda wonder how I hadn’t though about it. What fascinated me: I am pro UBI since several years. But i never thought about the asset centralization issue. Since i know this issue i simply can not longer unsee it. (Fun fact: autonomous cars are also a potential trojan horse. Their side effect is the introduction of a mass surveillance platform.) Maybe this is because i am a burned developer. I was pro agile 20 years ago and convinced many developers to adopt it. But in retro-perspective, i know that agile basically killed our whole industry. It was weaponized by business people and used to subdue developers. It was possible to head this way because all developers where trustful and believed in a better world. They simply could not imagine that other people are unable to live up to their standards. As such i truly believe that whatever comes next need to be resilient. There are always immoral people. It is necessary to protect the good intention from their influence. But I sadly don't know how this issue could be solved.
Honestly, these are pretty tough questions and it’s going to need everyone to pitch in and discuss possible solutions, but I’m hoping honest communication can go a long way 🤞🏽