Is this something Holla Forums supports? Why? Why not?

It will be rendered completely impotent in a generation when enacted.

The FIRE economy will just raise prices and absorb it all. Except there will be no welfare state

Nah. The removal of traditional welfare programs subsequent to UBI's introduction is always a threat. Even if its advocates don't state it explicitly (which they often do; look up the right-libertarian support for the idea), abolishing traditional welfare is such an obvious conclusion that it's hard to see how anyone would stop it.

All you need is one smarmy "fiscally conservative" cunt to say "hey, these people can pay for their food and some rent now, why are we subsidizing those moochers" and bam, a huge portion of the population is reliant on the whims of representative government and the capitalist market for their literal lives.

Even more pressing is the question, who exactly is going to calculate it? What method are they going to use? How are you going to prevent that same slimy cunt from saying "UBI is so complicated, let's simplify it and make it fairer for everybody", resulting in 4000 disabled 20-year-olds or single mothers dying or whatever?

Finally, the sheer horror of the right-libertarian argument for UBI gets it a big no from me. Basically, apparently the problem of our world is *not enough* capitalism, and people who receive food and shelter instead of money aren't moving muh invisible hand. Why the hell would I, as a communist, want to see the poor *more* reliant on the bourgeoisie?

The traditional welfare system isn't great. Obviously I'd say that. But it's a hell of a lot better for human life to have widely-dispersed and century-old welfare benefits than a single one introduced yesterday. There's simply way too much finangling possible by those who have interests other than the people, and it all goes to benefit porky's incessant trucking in human life.

Without nationalizing the FIRE economy it will lead to inflation. Every UBI proposal calls for the end of the welfare state.

When every welfare prole is homeless it will be funny to me to see them murder all the liberals that supported this

I'd tell all of the [email protected]/* */ of the coming night of the long knives. I'd give them AK-47's and modern computers to defeat the Hitlerists. That would be the only way to save Not Socialism from the Hitlerists and make it a relevant modern political force.

God I wish

But yeah, I can't suppress a twinge of accelerationism when I imagine a thousand newly-lumpen proletarians slitting the throats of the pigs who voted for UBI knowing full well they were doing it just to kick the riffraff out.

TLDR on FIRE economy?

I mean in relatively modern terms for their time what would you do if you were there?

Finance, Insurance, Real Estate. Basically the rentier class of the 21st century, i.e. the worst kind of porky.

Very, very true economically speaking–personally though, the worst one is always your boss

Depends on your goal no? If your goal is full communism now then you may see it as worth letting people suffer more to job loss and slipping standards of living. If your goal is more about improving people's lives then UBI is a great idea for something practical and 'progressive' that can be done right now.

And what the hell is with Captcha?

The left should support it but push for the most extreme yet practical version they can think of. If TPTB say no then normies who like the idea of UBI may be forced into deeper leftist thinking.

Luxury goods would get more expensive. Basic (plentiful) goods would stay the same and just see volume sale increase. Controls on house prices would likely be required but this isn't impossible and has been done before in many nations and cities.

You're wrong faggot.

Man this sounds good but at the same time I know it'll appease the working class causing the revolution to take longer. I'm torn.

This interests me, why is that? Wouldn't there be an incentive to lower prices now if that were the case?

I'd probably prevent 9/11 so as to prevent the rise of neoliberalism as we know it today. As for my personal life. I probably would have wasted money on college.

there is only one future for them

a valid change

If everyone must eat, why lower prices?

My first thought is that the people you describe are already at the whims of the government in the form of current welfare? And its not like they aren't trying to cut back that. In teh UK there are back to work tests that have been implicated in killing a few people since 2010. Even before that though, if you refused to take a position offered you by the job centre, your benefits were cut off. UBI means that the requirements (signing on every week, applying for ten jobs per week, proving disability) are removed. If it was guaranteed, and guaranteed at a level higher than the benefits it is to replace, where special additional funding was available to those who needed it the most (disabled, single parents) would this change your view?

Fully nationalising, especially insurance, would be economic suicide. Part nationalised housing and a national investment bank would be good workable ideas tho.

I still don't buy this argument. How are proles any more dependent on the state under UBI than they are on current welfare?

How so?

This seems to be the biggest objection to it on this baord. You're one of the first to out and say it though so congrats there.

Well basic goods (food, clothes), are by some metrics already cheaper than ever before. I said volume sales would go up because the median income would likely increase.

Shop around. If you're willing to go unbranded on food you'll find you can get easily 3-4 times as much stuff. Not saying everyone should just eat pic related but pic related costs about 9p. Branded is anywhere from 50p to £1.50. If the big manufacturers do try to increase their margins then discounters will undercut them, and they can undercut them for basically all basic goods.

Well, your formulation reads as "the market for basic goods would become more accessible, meaning more consumers, so the profit margins remain even though distribution has increased." I can't really see how the price of basic goods would stay the same *unless* there were people who weren't getting enough and UBI would let them.

But if that's the case, why couldn't the market just lower its prices now and not have to wait for UBI? Lowering the price of basics would have a similar effect, surely, to introducing an income for people to buy basics - again, assuming that not everyone gets to eat (enough, at least) at the present prices.

But if everyone *does* get to eat at the moment, why wouldn't prices go up, since everyone's income is being increased? I'm very confused.

That's true, they are. But what you're missing in my argument is that the welfare state is more dispersed - single benefits fulfilling single tasks is generally better in a representative system, since one cog falling won't bring down the whole machine. Sure, it'll have some effect, but nowhere near the vast and clearly-class-based effects of fucking with a single UBI value.

Well, then I'd ask how you're going to enforce these guarantees. The Work Capability Assessments I think you're referring to seem only to have been introduced in 1995, and I really wonder what the system was before that, if any. This is the issue; unless you change the very constitution of the country and slap it behind a bunch of unfriendly courts, every single ruling of a representative democracy is easily changeable within our lifetimes. That's why dispersion is important.

See above.

You forgot the pic. Interesting what you said about undercutting, though. I'll remember that, thanks!

pic wasn't that interesting but here.

Haven't been back to England for a year now, good to see it hasn't changed.

m8, you're missing out.

Ahhh. Got you. Well people are currently being 'sanctioned' in the UK for not taking the job they are assigned by the job centre, missing appointments, their medical situation changing. Numerous things can and regularly do happen. I see UBI as potentially being a defense against this too though. As UBI is unconditionally there can be no circumstance where one citizen is getting it while another has it withdrawn. This is to say, nobody is at risk of suddenly losing their UBI. If one does, we all do. So that'd be your revolution right there.

As to fucking with UBI, you mean like suddenly halving the amount? Again, the above system, that everyone receives it thus everyone is effected by change to it could defend against UBI being tampered with once implemented.

Going back before 95 is getting into a time that I was too young to really remember anything important, let alone comment accurately so I'll take your word for it. I do know that the tories/lib dems of 2010 set out to tighten up the system and brought in a new company, ASOS, to asses suitability for work. People with mental disorders and terminal illnesses were ordered to work as a result. Back to how would I enforce guarantees, do it by law. Over here laws can only be revered by parliament. I don't see many MPs voting to take money of each and every one of their citizens. They'd be trapped into the system, unable to do anything about it cause to do so would be such an unpopular decision. Kinda like the pension black hole we see right now. Everybody knows about it but the smart people also know that no MP will touch that with a ten foot pole as to say 'My platform this year is to scrap the state pension' is career suicide. My point, something like welfare is not an easy one to take away once it has been implemented. This very fact could be used making the case for a UBI substantially better than the current welfare system allows (£500/week/household)

Don't know why it wouldn't let me make this as a single post?

Yes, in theory, but so is the right to vote in America. If there's a political will in reducing UBI for a certain group, there will somehow be a way - just like the disgusting "grandfather clauses" of the American South. I'm suspicious of an outright guarantee, just because political interest is very good at making a very negative change seem intuitively "fair".

I mean adding exceptions, taking provisions away, little things that could be called "fucking with". For example, let's say the government removes a certain amount of UBI for those already living in council housing - calculated by some median rent payment saved. They show the public how, despite appearances, this wouldn't actually hurt anybody, since the UBI could still support them on a "wise budget".

Instantly, you've got millions of voters saying (cue Monty Python old-marm voice) "I don't know what the problem is, you'd be spending it on the rent anyway if you didn't live there, I don't live in council housing and I always made do, the government would save some money, it sounds fine". And wham, you've got a whopping great bite taken from your discretionary income, what was formerly a public or subsidized service is now suddenly capitalist, you've driven millions into the hands of the rentier class, and most of all you've set a precedent.

That's the kind of bogus "intuitive fairness" I'm jaded enough to expect for politicians, I'm afraid. Just look at Farage and his 350-gorillion-saved crap. And yes, while saying "I'm going to kill all your pensions" is career suicide, saying "I'm going to kill all your pensions and replace it with something new, based on good market sense" is much more insidious.

politicians are shit, government is cancer

It's happening again… I type out long fucking posts and they refuse to submit, just sitting at (posting 100%). C'mon volenteers. Sort this shit out. We don't pay you to sit on ass all day.

anyhoo.

THe only thing I'd say to

is that the only UBI I endorse is one that is 100% unconditional and for everybody. No mechanism would exist to penalize any one person or group of people. I'm not saying {{{they}}} wouldn't try. I'm saying vigilance would be required on the part of the citizen.

ffs…

This is a slightly separate but related issue. We (UK) have a sever lack of council housing. This would have to be addressed in tandem with UBI. What I'm saying is there is already a shortage of council housing so people who should be eligible are forced to the private sector anyway. This requires government action of building new houses.

I find it odd that the 'market sense' of the UBI is now being used to attack it when it was the very lack of this market practicallity that kept the issue under the table for so long. I first heard of the idea about 2005-2006. Only the past three years has it picked up steam in the mainstream. Prior to that it wasn't even seriously considered by most contemporary economstrs. It was considred self-evident that it wouldn't work. Now that this is being re-considered it kinda sticks in my craw that people on the left use this new found acceptance in orthodox economic thinking to attack it. Not so much you personally, just a general comment. It strikes me that a similar kind of misinformation is being placed in lefty press RE UBI that is placed in righty press over AGW.

I guess the real issue is how much of a UBI are we talking about? I'm sure most here but the most hardcore left communists would fully get behind a UBI of £50kpa, paid for out of porky's pocket. So I think to actually move this forward in any way we need to start looking at actual figures, essentially thinking about how much someone currently gets under the current welfare system.

WE'RE WINNING YOU SHITTY GOONS, LOOK AT OUR ACTIVE USER COUNT AND FUCK RIGHT OFF

They do it for free you fuckface. Give them a break. Go back to plebbit if you can't handle writing a captcha.

Freudian slip or meming right over my head?