From the Economist: Why the world should adopt a basic income Excerpt: In an era of rentier capitalism… [a basic income] would provide an anchor for a fairer income-distribution system. And, in countries with high crime-rates it could have a profound effect upon criminal activity. From a Pew Report here: Rentier-capitalism, is "franglais" - that is rentier in French means (in English) "a person living on income from property or investments". You know, uh ... people like Donald Dork and his entire family. Though, of course, they like to call themselves working "businessmen and businesswomen". So, pray tell, what's in a name? (Fecal-matter smells like fecal-matter. ;^) It is almost never a real question of "How much you got", but of "How you got it" ... NB: Note that in the definition of Basic Income, the key criterion is "legal resident in the community". Meaning one was born with national citizenship or acquired it legally. It does not mean the guy/gal who just made it through the fence from some foreign country (who probably deserves asylum but not necessarily citizenship) ...
and a great reason not to earn a basic income!! LIke we don't have enough people on the rentier dole!!
The elites in our society want the master and slave economy we currently have.Those that have do not want to share and never will.It's called human nature and greed.
1) slavery was made illegal in 19th century 2) in a just society you share in proportion to your contribution so everyone in encouraged to contribute rather than to liberal leech
but an era of rentier welfare would provide an anchor for a less income fairness since those on welfare would have an unfair advantage.
Largely because we let them have their way. We are all blinded by the rush of muney, muney, muney. We think that if we have the "slightest bit of luck" we can be like them. Mega-trillionaires. The Greatest with the Mostest. Fool's gold - they're going to end up just like the rest of us. Six feet under ...
wrong of course. people want to be like them because they are Christian and want make the biggest contribution to society. They want to invent a cure for cancer or a better cell phone out of love not for money which most lottery winners will tell you is a disaster.
Human nature? We have a tendency to be co-operative. Crikey, even criminals can't be arsed to follow the self-interest logic of the prisoner's dilemma.
1) we have a tendency to often go to war too. Do you understand? 2) you make the mistake of thinking he cares enough about what you say to look up prisoner's dilemma. Are you here just here to waste time?
Actually war is very rare. Its encouraged by capitalism mind you. You show your ignorance here. The dilemma is a key part of suggesting selfish behaviour. Crikey, even Adam Smith rejected the approach (acknowledging, via his moral sentiments, are tendency to cooperate). You don't know much do you?
There is only one key criterion for any people who live together in a community, large or small, and depend upon one another in a diverse market-economy. It is that when the common good is far, far better served than individual desires that country is worth living in. Otherwise, not. Particularly as regards the accumulation of Wealth ...
1. You believe in magic faries. 2. You want to control the masses with their vote. 3. You stand to benefit from government largesse
accumulated wealth represents and accumulated contribution to society which is why its a very worthy goal. If you could invent a cure or cancer or new cell phone you'd be very very happy to do it and enjoy the wealth and adoration of those you helped and those who would like to help as much as you did. There are laws against those who stand in the way of cancer cures and new cell phones out of jealously.
To what extent is capitalist innovation geared towards inventing new mobile phone relative to cure for cancer?
