Finland Labels Universal Basic Income as "Useless"

Universal basic income 'useless', says Finland's biggest union
Since January, some unemployed Finns have been receiving a stipend of €560 (£477) per month; amount isn’t means-tested and is paid regardless of whether recipient finds a job
Raine Tiessalo | Thursday 9 February 2017 16:30 GMT


independent.co.uk/news/business/news/universal-basic-income-finland-useless-says-trade-union-a7571966.html
archive.is/9JbQ1

Other urls found in this thread:

youtube.com/watch?v=7Pq-S557XQU
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Population_planning_in_Singapore
theguardian.com/politics/2006/dec/11/uk.greenpolitics
theguardian.com/environment/2006/jan/24/business.travelnews
twitter.com/SFWRedditVideos

That pic needs another part.
We farm to eat and to trade part of what we farm for something someone else farms.
This also promotes national/tribal/societal kinship.

Let me guess, they gave the money to immigrants/druggies?

It should be noted a universal basic income has been championed by many libertarian-leaning economists including arch-kike Milton Friedman.

It's much better than the shitload of housing/food/medical care/education/etc gibs we have.

And shiftless ne'er-do-wells, people with art history degrees, and so on.

I highly expect this to be memory holed or simply ignored by every UBI proponent around the world.

OP you have the reading comprehension of a nigger, possibly less.

Let's start with your subject:


No, a trade union said that. You're an idiot.

Now for the first line you put down:


It started a month ago, and has 23 months to go. Nobody has any idea how it will go. Some trade union with a clearly biased interest should be the last source you're looking for when trying to learn about things like this. You're an idiot.

Also you used archive.is which we've had multiple threads about it being compromised. You get a pass on this one though because a lot of faggots on here seem not to care and use it anyway.

Learn how to write a proper OP, and perhaps be less mentally retarded next time. Good luck.

Monasteries, guilds, and temples are more than capable of caring for and providing meaningful employment those people who presently exist at the fringes of society and have been failed by the prevailing capitalist system.

Careful, user, you're risking inviting the wrath of anti-Christian JIDF and LARPagthiests with that sort of intelligent rhetoric.

I would join a commune but I'm not a hippie
I would join a monastery but I'm not religious

There might be something to basic income afterall.

Congratulations. You've been very well conditioned by kike capitalism.
Multi-generational households, local gift economies, looking out for members of your community and not being a consumerist hedonistic degenerate used to be common, before the kikes pushed their globalist capitalism everywhere and convinced everyone to get into debt to (((international banks))).

Can you point me out to one such communal living/working arrangement that is not a bunch of dirty hippies nor a religious cult?

I'm not an economist by any means, but wouldn't giving free monies to people who aren't working just have an effect similar to inflation? That is, business's will raise prices on their products because they know even poorfags can afford it now that theyre getting UBI?

Friedman didn't argue for universal basic income. He would never have argued in favor of people receiving money regardless of whether they're employed or not.

Anyone with a brain could tell you that.

He made an argument for negative income tax, which is sort of the same thing but not really.

would you consider joining a kektic monastery?

The welfare state only subsidizes those proven to be useless and promotes dysgenics. Even if UBI does increase inflation it won't necessarily result in runaway inflation and may solve the ugly problems caused by the welfare state. We could pair it with other economic ideas like removing the minimum wage to mitigate the inflation.

Sure, why not.

Shadilay.

Great post structure, A+
have a bump
also can't stand UBI morons

this is the shittiest OP i've seen in a while, what the fuck
ubi would be great as long as we have a bit stricter border control (or any for that matter)
it would of course be just for citizens, at this point refugees who have been denied asylum just stick around and still get benefits, its fucking retarded

Friedman has made such an argument though, that welfare if it has to be given, is preferable to be a cash lump sum with no strings attached, than a form of dole that has rules and regulations on how and what to spend it on.

kill yourself

I agree. UBI is workable but would require a whole suite of social and economic reforms before it would be viable. As it stands now we might as well be wiring Somalia 5% of our GDP.

Universal Basic Income is retarded. The Negative Income tax is smart smart smart
Hayek supported it fgt

6 million hours in MSpaint

How would NIT not be every bit as dysgenic as the current welfare state?

He's right Freidman made the argument that IF you were to give money THEN it should be used at the recipient's discretion. HAYEK argued for the NIT or Negative Income Tax, which is a bit different from UBI

It isn't the same thing. For starters, Friedman's scheme isn't completely insane, because it isn't fucking unconditional. Negative income tax and universal income are "the same" only in the same sense that a white person and a nigger are "the same" because they belong in the same species. There's crucial difference missing when you put things that way. Namely, that handing out dole without regard for whether the people getting it are even employed is just insane.

And I don't even like Friedman.

NEETS RELOCATE TO FINLAND

they will give you a basic income… they drive inflation up so you can barely eat on it much let rent an apartment.

Its the ultimate slavery.

...

Yeah so many guilds around today

First of all, I don't support NIT bc it solves all problems, but simply because it is a huge improvement over the current system, and its actually workable and politically feasible – whereas "starve the niggers" is not

Second, it provides proper incentives. Under the current system Shaniqua gets mo money if she has mo babby, but NIT wouldn't work that way. In fact, it would encourage family planning, productivity etc by eliminating the "welfare cliff" and, as aforementioned, eliminating "loopholes" where irrational behavior is rewarded. I believe that is the major argument in the Bell Curve. That is, the subsidy system has improper incentives, not giving money to poor people is always dysgenic. And, even if it were, unfortunately for you we don't live in a world where ppl let others die in the streets. If you take away the welfare system, then churches etc would just feed the dumb niggers. ex: SubSaharan Africa

That's why I said "sort of the same but not really." The effects would be similar in a lot of ways.

How is NIT not unconditional? What do you mean?

Oh boy you done it now OP, the UBI fags are gonna come down on ya.

I would rather have a bloated and inefficient system that wastes tons of money. It's much better for us. Trying to make the Jew system more efficient so that they can Jew you harder is retarded.

...

friendly reminder that much of the reason we have the welfare state instead of basic income is because of a fear of socialism. What resulted was something much shittier and only happened because it was convoluted enough to seem not-quite-socialist.

They just keep coming up with fancy names for communism.

makes perfect sense!

This sounds like commie shit. A welfare state cripples people and keeps them dependent on gibs. Competitiveness is a good thing, and so is rivalry. People are selfish by nature, and they probably need a little more anxiety and a lot more nutting up in the first place.

Fact is, civilized societies don't like to see people struggle, suffer, and die. It's good people want to prevent it. But, it happens, and it's not the government's job to stop it. If it bothers you, do something about it. If you don't do something, and expect others to take care of the problem for you, you obviously didn't care enough.

UBI would accomplish all of the above while actually encouraging people to compete. NIT is effectively trying to fix a fundamentally broken system of rewarding the useless whereas UBI still encourages free market competition. Those who do not want to actually work are going to have to get used to a subsistence life. They won't starve but neither will they afford luxuries.

Is their higher education has budget (free) places? If it has, this shit is extremely useful to people who failed to graduate universities, since they will have enough funds to go back to educations, instead of forcing themselves to work right away. I know students already have stipends, but they usually small and they will have a time when they don't receive them between changing university, if such need will be required.

But at the same time this practice can rise even greater generation of social studies social justice warriors, who will be neet and receiving money from government, therefore do more activism on both internet and irl. Thinking that their right to not work is giving them opportunities to shill their degeneracy harder. Some people can even become literal children with no understanding of life, and still live up till the old age.

False, arguing for such a statist overreach as UBI makes you by necessity not a libertarian.

we already have extensive welfare in finland, ubi would just make things cheaper, simpler and fairer
the current system is shit compared to what it could be


see above
I don't know how good of an idea ubi would be in the USA

there probably needs to be some restrictions on reproduction

You're a dumbass. The only thing that will destroy western civilization will be if whites are overrun by shitskins, which will inevitably happen unless we have revolution/civil war/balkanization. Perpetuating the jewish system means death of whites which means death of Western civilization.

You're retarded.

NEETs BTFO

No its not because prices function as a sponge for inflated wages just like they do universal income. The arguments that demolish minimum wage laws also demolish universal basic income.

Blaming "the system" for why suzie sjw or anthony the cuck decided to become psychology majors and do nothing productive is disingenuous and ignores personal accountability. iow you're a faggot

Everything you said is completely ass-backwards. Look NIT and UBI are very similar, so let's list the differences and work from there.

>1) UBI is generally built on top of existing welfare systems, whereas the NIT is designed to replace said welfare system
(therefore UBI retains the problems in the current system such as disincentives to work etc)

>2) UBI is a block payment to everyone whereas NIT reduces payouts by a pre-defined formula (such as for every dollar in reported income payout is reduced by 2 cents)
Why have the government shuffle around more money than it needs to? NIT makes more sense here.

The income tax does have problems, but let's not forget the UBI doesn't solve this (see: #1). State Owned Enterprises are notoriously inefficient and SJW-ridden, and reduce competition and free market activities by definition

If there is anything I'm missing please let me know, but after reading your last post I'm in that phase where you wonder if someone is perhaps retarded or trolling.

Not through that mechanism. The taxes it takes to fund the UBI might raise prices on some goods depending on who they hit, though.
One exception: on positional goods like housing, you would see this effect, because a large part of the point of the pricing is to keep out poorfags (in the US, read "poorfags" as "niggers")

I've had this thought before, and I think it offers a new way of thinking about UBI (Universal Basic Income). It does not take the money of those who work to those who do not (although there is wealth redistribution). (Or if it does, it does so in very small amounts.)

There should be two currencies, one for human effort, and the other being good for rationing the efforts of state-owned robots or AI.

Slaves have typically been bad for economies because it is the slave-owner who is entitled to the efforts of the slaves, leaving the free lower classes of that race/stock unable to compete with slave labor. Robots are essentially super-slaves; they require very little money to maintain, and can work all day with no complaints, and do not really buy anything.

A way around this, without telling people that they are not entitled to the products made by their machinery, is to produce state-owned robots–any human effort of maintaining said things being paid with taxes in the primary (human-based) currency.

This way, the state-owned robots will ruthlessly out-compete any business they try to fill the role of, without regulating those businesses with too much red tape (even though market regulation can be a very good thing, such as preventing GMOs from being sold at grocery stores, or enforcing the use of bio-degradable bags at large retail outlets).

In addition, annual incomes for any given person should not exceed the median worker's salary by more than a factor of ten. Income differentials can be a good thing, but too much of it leads to corporatism and with the minimal effort of some CEOs being worth far more than the effort of the middle and lower classes. If I recall correctly, National Socialist Germany did something like this.

This video is also highly related. Human labor will become increasingly trivial, especially for high-end white collar jobs. Your medical degree or degree in engineering will not save you from the AI revolution. That is, assuming you haven't already seen it, considering it was plastered on Holla Forums for a while a couple years ago.

(Can't embed because it's already been embedded elsewhere.)
Humans need not apply:
youtube.com/watch?v=7Pq-S557XQU

Basic income is the complete death of freedom and your endless slavery towards the state.

Don't make the mistake of thinking that you're just going to get those money entirely for existing.

really? isnt the point to make the system as simple as possible and eliminate unnecessary bureucracy, this is why its universal, its even given to millionaires

congrats. you're retarded. how about this: the government continues to fund R&D, start-ups, etc, but instead of just asking for a (usually below market rate) interest rate (and often forgiving the loan altogether), instead the government asks for a stake in the corporation which it can then sell at a later date to fund more R&D, or fund UBI? (even though UBI is retarded and NIT is way better). They say if Washington had asked for a modest stake in Amazon (who they funded initially) then they'd have some absurd amount of money which could be used to fund more tech.


Nothing you said makes any sense and you should kill yourself.

We need to start heavily taxing manufactoring robots & automation and redistribute the said tax to the native populace(not immigrants), as otherwise the profits from untaxed robots would just pile up in the hands of the (((chosen few.)))

Welfare should be what you can get from family, friends, and neighbors. Anything on a larger scale will be exploited by jews.

...

A lot of shills out tonight. Seeing Reddit tier threads popping up everywhere.

If you think UBI is a good idea you should do what's best for your country and kill yourself

This

nice argument

ubi with everyone getting exactly the same no matter what is better than current welfare system, but much better would be to force everyone to rely on their families and communities. Fuck niggers lol.


Nothing you said makes any sense and you should kill yourself.

I think the reason its Universal like that is to make it compatible with different funding structures, unlike NIT which wouldn't work without an income tax, which I believe a number of European countries lack (isn't France completely funded on VAT?). The income tax is, btw, notoriously expensive to administer, so UBI claims a benefit there. However, they still have to prove that their funding structure is superior, and that countries that adopt UBI drop their income tax. Similarly for other welfare provisions like housing subsidies or "food stamps" etc. Likewise, those that claim UBI promotes more freedom (for instance by cutting other welfare systems) have to show that the resulting (and larger) funding structure wouldn't cause sever market distortions or restrictions in freedom. The NIT on the other hand would be much smaller, as it reduces payments with a formula based on income.

I think there have only been a couple countries who have adopted UBI and I don't know of any whatsoever that got rid of any of their subsidy systems except cash-payment systems. In the end, UBI and NIT are really similar, but NIT would simply be more feasible in the US, given the already-existing dependence on the earned income tax by the federal government. And, besides, all that data generated by the IRS is used by a myriad of scientists from the Academe to the Department of Labor, to Marketing Depts in private corporations. Its not like you're going to stop collecting income data if you get rid of the income tax, so in the end its not really much of a cost-savings to the economy as a whole.

no you're just stupid, son

You seem a little rabid (at first). This is typically indicative of shills, but I'll assume you're an honest Holla Forumsack because of your earlier posts.

I'm a National Socialist.

That depends on the stock whose government it is, and the health of the nation at hand. I've little doubt that state-owned businesses run by, say, the German National Socialist government of yore would be quite competitive. If you're going off of the modern American government that has a hefty Jewish involvement and is bloated by many different races and is quite antithetical to any political ideology or another, then, yes, it's going to be bad.

Your proposition does seem good though. To my mind, it is easier to separate the public and private sectors quite clearly, instead of having an interesting intermediary state, as you propose. I'll have to give this further thought.

This leads to a lot of red tape, however, and I hate bureaucracies. How to determine what is a robot or what kinds of AI need to be taxed is going to be difficult. I'm essentially a socialist who wants everything to be as straightforward as possible, with a few licenses here or there if you're running, say, a private grocery store and we don't want people being sold stuff that doesn't list the ingredients on it (a good example of market regulation that doesn't go too far).

But, yes, socialism cannot survive without nationalism, the latter protecting both from below (large hordes of non-whites) and from above (Jewish oligarchs).

This would be the best way to fund r&d. Public funding with private profits (what we have today which also happens to be corrupt as fuck) is pure kikery. If those profits were returned to taxpayers proportional to their contribution, then it would be less Jewish. Not really UBI, but a way that a handful of politically connected businessmen aren't making all the profits from taxpayer funding.

...

butthurt leftykike detected

user, posts like and are why I immediately suspect anyone of calling anyone else a retard, just out of disagreement and not for overt stupidity, is probably a shill. Thus explains the first part of my post here

We need to do something about these shills, user.

ur not from around here, are you

reddit please go

nope. GTFO retarded nigger. stopped reading there
>>>Holla Forums

I'm not adverse to "work," I'm adverse to being a nameless cog in a soulless machine that works to enslave everyone and has no problem selling us out for cheaper parts. I firmly believe that some people have a calling or something they are simply good at or meant to do in life (all it takes is a little practise to discover it), and being forced into extreme drudgery is simply unbearable knowing that. Schooling used to be about finding that out (or at least encouraged your whims) but only life experience can solidify purpose. Doing what suits us personally would make for a happier populace, one that would actually be willing to defend itself and not sell out to foreign labour.

I've been on the chans for a while, and I know that calling everyone a faggot or shill was the custom back in the Holla Forums days, but it's been abused by shills as of late.

You didn't really seem to address my points either, and misconstrued what I was trying to say.

…So maybe you are a shill.
I'm really tired of wasting my time on covert shills.

But yet you proposed a system that would create ALOT of red tape by nationalizing ALL automatons and lets not even touch your suggestion to create a secondary currency for automated goods, which would lead to more (((banker and merchant))) tricks.

What you're proposing is straight up communism.

He's a lolbertarian, so of course he is a shill.

absolutely. the government fucking funded the development of the algorithms used by both Google and Amazon. Now, imagine if instead of acting "like a bank" they had been acting "like a venture capitalist." Or, they could have just acting like a real fucking government and banned Google and Amazon from copyrighting the source code, making it free for all. But, yeah, they could at least have been smart and fostered a venture capitalist relationship.


ignored


okok, I went back and read your post and I think perhaps you have some conceptual problems. There is no "separating completely" private from public enterprise, because there is no way to separate resource allocation from resource allocation. The economy is the economy. It's interconnected no matter what. The question is: what incentives are in place? And, form has a lot to do with that. Also, in my proposition the government wouldn't really be changing anything its already doing, but just asking for a different form of payment - not that "the government already does it" is a justification, but just that it makes it easier to implement.

Basic Universal Income is a great idea.
Unfortunately, it could only ever work in a 100% White country. Take Sweden as an example… They suddenly forgot to add the Nationalism to the Socialism (which had been working incredibly well, and providing an excellent standard of living) and are now about to completely collapse into a 3rd world shithole. (And that's being generous by implying they haven't already.)

In a 100% White country, 'Universal' Basic Income would be great. But it can never happen while there is a single shitskin or kike subverting your nation.


They're not even covert, they immediately jump to screaming "You're a shill! You're cuckchan! You're Reddit!" at the first sign of a debate… Obvious kike tactic.

see

also this

justice

Nigger what? Those automatons that are owned by the state. Not the robot you own for your hypothetical business.

Why would this necessarily be the case–especially for a currency that is distributed absolutely equally to all whites in the nation. (Well, maybe that's redundant because there shouldn't be ANY non-whites in that nation to begin with.)


I hate libertarians so much. Muh I earned this!! Don't steal from me! when talking about CEOs who make orders of magnitudes more than the median worker for the same effort. That's not earning it' that is the theft that is protected under laissez-faire capitalism.

...

this is actually untrue. NIT and UBI would work great, assuming that after the stupid niggers go blow all their money on crack, people just let them starve. As it is right now, the nanny state forbids them from managing their own affairs, providing a great number of in-kind subsidies which keep them housed, fed, healthy etc. The reality is, UBI/NIT would be a massive step forward from the current situation in the US.

Nixon proposed the NIT btw and Democrats blocked it.

they're clearly a newfag or reporter. possibly CtR or some antifa faggot that straggled over here from RevLeft etc

Jesus, fuck 'YES! I've been saying this for a while, you're not a national socialist unless you're actually a socialist. That doesn't mean, necessarily, that you have to support UBI, but too many of us supposed National Socialists forget about the second word in the statement of our political conviction.

The happiness and welfare of the people is incredibly important. The muh hardness is good! Life should be very tough and the poor should starve! really irk me. It's like, they care about their race's survival, but they don't give two shits about poor white men starving on the street.

National Socialism should be paired with an aggressive (but comfortable) eugenics program too. This system of National Socialism is thus superior in every way to National Capitalism–it is emulative of human nature, rather than the fierce feral nature of insects who don't have limbic systems or the ability to love.

Whoops cornfused him with another guy.

But he is an anti-white cuckservative, so just as bad.

Don't ever argue a libertarian from that angle bc they'll start sperging about the definition of theft and muh free market etc. Argue from the position that they are historically and politically illiterate. The systems in place now may suck in all kinds of ways, but they were put there for a reason, and that reason (for the most part) wasn't Soviet infiltration or whatever. The fact is free market economies are unstable, they deracinate peoples, destroy communities etc etc. It doesn't matter if its "theft" or not. The simple fact is people will rebel and they will overthrow the system if something isn't done. Period. Call it the human condition or stupidity or the slave revolt – call it whatever you want, but just realize that its going to happen and therefore muh mkts isn't an argument.

Well, I actually meant to say "retard" in place of shill. My bad. I don't recall anyone on Holla Forums a few years ago calling each other shills, just retards and faggots.

So instead of poor less-than perfect white men starving in the capitalist streets you propose to just kill them for being less-than perfect with a socialist eugenics program?

You don't seem to have a good understanding of eugenics. Ever heard of the cult of Freyr?

>>>Holla Forums
>>>/retard/

That's good to hear. This is their main point of argument–that they think wealth redistribution is theft, when it is not clear who has earned what in any economy. It is not something easily defined.

And none of them will be making seven figures anyway–they can only benefit from socialism. They have it in their head that the moderately successful person who earns six figures will be ruthlessly targeted, when in reality we're going to go after the CEOs who make seven figures or more annually after putting their profits back into their company.

The natural inclination for people is to have offspring. Even if the absolute only thing performed under a eugenics program was the removal of reproductive functions there would be those in the current generation who resisted, and many of those people would die as a result. That's not to mention the number of recessive traits which might continually resurface, and the results further down the line. It's an incredibly inefficient solution that will inevitably lead to death and most certainly spark either internal or external strife.


Oh I assure you I have a perfectly good understanding of eugenics, and it has nothing to do with barbarian goddesses. And the defining principle is this: Whatever logic stands behind eugenics, there is always a moral issue. To speak with one hand "I do this for the good of my people" and on the other hand say "I am killing my people" is a ridiculous statement. It is the exact same thing which was done under communist regimes to suppress the people.

...

(For all anons, and for who seems to be very new here):


Eugenics is a broad category. The Eugenics practiced by Spartans is very harsh and anti-humane. A eugenics policy where those individuals who are more intelligent and have well-defined Northern European features receive incentives for larger family sizes is very different by comparison. Another method we might consider is the eugenics of providing good-quality sperm or eggs to people who wouldn't otherwise find a partner, though I don't like too much the thought of single-parent households, and genetic sexual attraction implies that there might be a lot of unintended inbreeding as a result of this.

I also advocate economic incentives for those of lesser intelligence, or certain phenotypic features (such as swarthiness or extreme hairiness) to not procreate as much.

None of this involved killing anyone.

But genetic sexual attraction is God's way of telling you to fuck your sister.

actually when women are free to choose and have available birth control, they tend to have children at or below the replacement rate, so I just stopped reading there.

You need to stop equating Eugenics with State force. Eugenics is simply a system that encourages "good breeding." Genetically modifying children (to say remove a gene for Tay Sachs) is eugenics. Or you could, for instance, pay very smart/attractive/tall/whatever people to have MORE children than they would have in the absence of the subsidy. Given what I said above about people preferring to breed at below replacement, this is likely where eugenics will go in the future.


Yeah, stop thinking that way. If you want to argue on Holla Forums you need to talk about deracination, point out that human beings are more than "units of labor" etc. All that whiny muh oppression muh CEOs isn't going to work here bc Holla Forums tends to like authority and social stratification, or at least sees it as natural. On that note, another argument is that capitalism doesn't promote a "Natural Aristocracy" but a "Plutocracy" – its not rule by the best but rule by the greediest

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Population_planning_in_Singapore

Aside from a lot of the other weirdness in there, Singapore offered a nice chunk of change to families that elected to get chemically sterilized. The result was nothing but positive effects: poverty shot down (poor people had money and stopped having kids), employment went up, college enrollment went up, etc.

>rabidly attacks, gets called out on it, then behaves for a little while, then attacks again by making an appeal to the community
I've been on Holla Forums for a few years, and I can tell you're not from around here.

I should get paid to exist. No seriously.

REMINDER THAT EVERYONE POSTING ITT THINKING THE OP IS TRUE IS A COMPLETE MORON AND A DISGRACE TO THIS BOARD.

CtR ignored

At this point you have to be trolling. That, or you really do have the reading comprehension of a retarded nigger.

You can't derail a thread where the OP is a complete fabrication. You'd know that if you actually read it or the article linked.

When you think about it, people back in the day could live off the land. we could hunt, trap, fish,or forage for our food. This is something that's not feasible today. Even if it were legal to do so, everyone else doing it so much would make it unlikely that you'd get very much food for yourself due to thinning animal populations. Modernity has essentially stripped such freedom from us.

Capitalism was PERFECT back when participation in it was essentially voluntary. But now, it's mandatory. It's like being forced on to an already packed train cart. You either scramble your way into a spot where you can fit in (by pushing others aside, of course) or get crushed along with everyone else who couldn't find their niche.

the thread topic, in general, is on the relative merits of UBI and other alternatives. And, yes, I know the OP is a shill: can't figure out yet if its /liberty/ or Holla Forums, but its definitely /lefypol/-tier retardation

The 80's called. They said "Greed is Good."

Sounds comfy. Sign me up fam

The 30's called, they said gas the kikes race war now


the final destruction of the commons was the capitalist emperor taking off his clothes

Archive.is isn't compromised you retarded niggers. This was spelt out clearly in the very first fucking thread that drew attention to it. The issue, which hasn't surfaced again since then, was malicious actors using archive.is pages to farm ips. If you clicked on an archive.is page and it was just a blank page constantly loading, grats that shitty CIA school has your IP. That was the big kerfuffle. Otherwise yes archive.is is absolutely fine.

universal food and housing would be better than just giving them money. there's a limited number of ways you can abuse a loaf of bread

Groups of friends that do favors for one another and give gifts to another or barter various goods that don't worry about who owes who (as long as nobody's being a leech).

That's what I'm thinking.

And you have the gall to say others are newfags, You seem to not understand that national socialism is not socialism in the way you want it to be.

Nigger tier article.

The Finnish UBI "experiment" has been shat on by pretty much every economist in Finland because it was done as political stunt and not an experiment.

Finnish social security is already a defacto UBI with some caveats, like "educate yourself, faggot". It has conditions but all in all it might as well not have any.
If you make a test where you pay handful of NEETs 500 jewros more, it wont shown on any meaningful economic indicators anywhere. Literally, a wasted 1m Jewros on a stunt.

Well it does contain a bit more socialism than we see today in say, America. Difference is it's for mostly racially homogeneous states so by supporting your people you're supporting your blood. Unlike racially diverse countries where paying into welfare is paying your evolutionary competitors to compete with you.

Yes but that's a completely meaningless point. Hitler's Germany contained more capitalist elements than The USSR too.

This thread reeks of Holla Forums and CREW subversion, attempting to cause a leftward drift in the board consensus. We're not socialists, national socialism =/= socialism.

wtf are you talking about, of course you can. What you can't do is live on the land and not get taxed to pay for faggots who think they deserve other peoples' money. And everyone can't do it, but it doesn't matter because almost no one actually wants to.


I do, but what I don't care about is people wanting gibs. Real communities come together to help the ones who actually deserve it. What they don't do is give single moms money for shitting out kids with no father or pay men who are capable but unwilling to work.

I would say the unfit can starve but close enough. I'm not say it is something we should want, but it is in line with nature.

Nigger, my statement is trivially true. You can't be a National Socialist unless you are some form of a socialist.

You can be National XYZ, like National Capitalist, National Libertarian, or National whatever and still admire National Socialist Germany without actually be a socialist, and therefore a National Socialist.

Have you seen this old picture before?

The moral argument is that people shouldn't be allowed to birth subhumans. It's tantamount to child abuse. Eugenics is a moral imperative.

But morality is besides the point. Eugenics is a necessary policy to counteract the dysgenic effects of civilization. Civilization naturally turns people into numales and cretins. Eugenics fixes this.

And sometimes killing people is the correct action.

It's the golden rule. If I were born retarded or subhuman, I would hope someone would kill me. By the golden rule, to do unto others as I would have them do unto me, I support killing subhumans and tards.

That's the point. If they inflate the currency then people will depend on the government/liberals/democrats/commies just to survive.


The same people who push for UBI are the same people who push for Mass Migration.

If there won't be jobs then we shouldn't import future dependents who's dependents will never get a job.

Liberals get outraged if you suggest sterilization as a requirement for UBI.

UBI is nothing more than wealth distribution.
The elite also want to implement carbon credits.

Canada is starting to do so.

everyone on earth will be given the same number of 'carbon credits' so a person living in a village in India, who doesn't even own a car, will suddenly has a 1000 carbon credits. If a family in America wants to have two cars and heat their home in winter they will have to buy credits from poorer countries.

Every citizen would be issued with a carbon "credit card" - to be swiped every time they bought petrol, paid an energy utility bill or booked an airline ticket - under a nationwide carbon rationing scheme that could come into operation within five years, according to a feasibility study commissioned by the environment secretary, David Miliband, and published today.

The idea was floated in a speech in the summer, but the detailed proposals show Mr Miliband is serious about trying to press ahead with the radical idea as a central part of his climate change strategy. Under the scheme, everybody would be given an annual allowance of the carbon they could expend on a range of products, probably food, energy and travel. If they wanted to use more carbon, they would be able to buy it from somebody else. The report admits huge questions would have to be resolved, including the risk of fraud, the relationship to ID cards, and costs. However Mr Miliband said "bold thinking is required because the world is in a dangerous place".

theguardian.com/politics/2006/dec/11/uk.greenpolitics

In a few years from now you will have another plastic card in your wallet - your carbon card. You will start the year with 1,000 points on it and each time you fill up your car, you put the card in a slot on the pump and it will deduct a few points. Each time you buy an airline ticket, it will cost you a minimum of 100 points. If you fly regularly, you may have to buy more points through the carbon market - but since it is all in the cause of reducing greenhouse gas emissions you do not mind so much.

theguardian.com/environment/2006/jan/24/business.travelnews

There won't be basic income. There will be basic housing, basic food etc. It will be like those nigger-warehousing "projects" except for everyone. They'll just keep people on life support in a miserable state until they idle their lifespan away. Probably soon the punishment for not displaying any particular talent by the age of 20 will be sterilisation.

Yep we have these all over the place over here we have so many guilds that we look like WoW in real life.

Him I didn't mind, he's right.
You are the cuckstains here

Russia is puppeting Finland now?

That comic was right!

You were so close. The welfare state has killed the church as a community nucleus and support structure. Why go to the church for assistance when you can get many services for free and gibs mailed straight to your door twice a month? Get rid of that and people again become dependent on charity when they're struggling and the largest source of charity comes from people who think it is God's will to help. Bam, traditional values restored.


That's not true at all. The archive.is admin was lazy implementing Cloudflare and used a template that had a gif hosted by a university. You only see that page whenever the servers are stressed. There are no IP-harvesting trick pages. How would that even make sense? It only uses the most basic of JS to keep the website structure together.

I've been expecting something like this in the event of major dollar/federalreserve habbenings. You would think they can't prop up the climate change hysteria long enough to do it. But if you look at money sunk into bullshit like corn ethanol and wind farms, you see that the people who think they make a buck on it will fight tooth and nail regardless of it fucking everyone else over. Who would benefit from carbon credits? Everyone but the politically unconnected whites and some asians. I think the US is in the clear with Trump in at least for that.

As for UBI, notice that almost none who support it are actually for ending all the other forms of welfare and redistribution.

Semantically yes, you're right. But you're not a national socialist, you're a socialist nationalist. Your posts make this evident: You're a socialist moron before you're a nationalist. Even then Hitler advocated a mixed economy, nationalization of industry was not wholesale you dense fuck.

Also
Nice to know you ARE just as retarded as I said, thinking Libertarians can be nationalist in any way.

SHARING TECHNOLOGY WAS A MISTAKE, WE SHOULD WIPE OUT TECH ILLITERATE POPULATION (aka 95% of the population)

Man ever since the middle ages, tech and science people should simply.. not share anything. They could make a quasi monastery. Nobody gives a shit, nobody checks in on you, they could all just live in this quasi monastery.
Then somewhere around 19th century, they could come out of their monasteries and rule the world as
WIZARDS
They could simply keep explaining life to peasants in terms of magic and demons and that kind of crap. I mean how many of you retards today know how computers work? How to make penicillin? Smart munitions that keep you safe? Machines that feed you?
YOU DONT KNOW ANYTHING
It is all possible because of few members of society who none of you ever said THANK YOU.

NO, TECHNOLOGICALLY AND SCIENTIFICALLY LITERATE PEOPLE SHOULD PULL OUT OF SOCIETY, LET IT ALL GO TO SHIT, AND THEN RECLAIM THE WHOLE WORLD FOR THEMSELVES
Like a modern Sparta. You cant achieve a basic standard such as tech degree, you get thrown off cliff. Like a modern Prussia. You join the army when you are 14 and stay in it till you are 60 but instead of fighting all your neighbors at once, you colonize Mars.

Yes, let Silicon Valley types inherit the Earth. That idea's just SUPER.

As you can see, tech types are objectively, measurably, empirically superior. They get 6 digits starting in private sectors. They built all fortune 500 companies. They run all the most successful businesses. They keep you safe. They feed you.
THEY DO EVERYTHING, AND EVERYONE ELSE SHOULD GET DARWIN'D OUT

UBI + forced sterilization

But who would cook them phuh? Or disgusting hippy Thai food for hoity toity stems?

Inb4 robots

You know what's fun?

If there's hyper inflation they will give everyone a debit card. With electronics they can adjust your bank account to the current inflation rate.

They will probably chip people.

Obviously in this system, he who controls all the machines/systems will have all the power. And why the fuck would such an individual share the produce of this automation with subhumans who didnt study automation??????????
None of you people know how hard it is to build machines and automation, if you think that anyone is going to build you pic related and just give it all away, you couldnt be more wrong.

Here's what's actually going to happen: people who build these things are simply going to wipe out people who dont build these things.
It's irrelevant what you think, nobody gives a shit, you'll get a bullet or a shell or a missile to your face, not a credit card or free money or anything like that.

They would reduce the tax on people and business so they have more money to spend on the things they need. Also make the tax flat.

At the very least you could put effort into your shitposts.

This shit doesn't happen overnight, it takes time. And it won't matter how many robots you make if you're dead before they come onto the scene.

What makes you think he can protect it?????????????????????
The industrial revolution spread to America because Samuel Slater ran off with the plans that the British were using and keeping secret by law. If it was a matter of life or death, you'd see people stealing those plans real quick.

Not that there would be any reason to keep it a secret. Robots are not nuclear weapons. There is no rare resource needed to create them. There is no "silver bullet" that will advance them from where they are now to general purpose human-replacers. Any business that invents pioneering technology would make more money selling them as products than trying to dominate an industry with them. Your paranoid vision is not grounded in reality.

You disgust me, filthy communist poser. The welfare of the nation does not equate to subsidizing weakness or carelessness. It definitely doesn't hold any specific economic policies.

If you're a noble newfag need to stop appealing ideologic dogma and start looking at the fallacies of the economic proposals you make. They can cause more harm to the nation in the long run.

Vasemmistoliitto botti havaittu

GET OUT, anti-white trash!

You're becoming a parody of yourself at this point lad.

An eugenics program doesn't have to kill anyone, just limit reproductive opportunities for unfit stock. If properly done, the problem solves itself in a couple generations.

(((libertarian-leaning economists)))

1. it's illegal to hunt/fish/trap year round
2. if it were legal, all the game would be dead
Try reading at least 1 sentence beyond the phrase you have issue with.

So Finland is all geared up to fuck itself over by removing the most basic reason to find a job. Neat.

Are you retarded? Do you have zero reading comprehension?

but if everyone has money what is the point of it? am i going to have to start collecting human slaves again, nyoro ~~

its not really ubi, because the current system disincentivizes working, ubi would do the opposite

...

On Economics a mixed combination (unironically) between Hayek (long-term) and Keynes (short-term) is the only solution. You can also add some American School (protectionism) and Feder's Ideas too.

compared to the current system it certainly would, assuming the amount of money you get it about the same as now