Basic income for everyone?

Now, what news on the Rialto?
User avatar
YMix
Posts: 4631
Joined: Mon Dec 12, 2011 4:53 am
Location: Department of Congruity - Report any outliers here

Re: Basic income for everyone?

Post by YMix »

Mr. Perfect wrote:Laughable. In the US conservatives have a TFR of 2, white liberals 1. The destruction is from ideologies of choice, not farming vs office work. Most if not all of my family works in offices and we have lots of kids.
Laughable indeed. A TFR of 2 is not even replacement rate. Since you claim that ideology is the only factor involved, I guess yours is not motivating enough.
Yeah. It's been great.
Then stop complaining about the effects.
What's also happening is white leftists don't have kids anymore.
As far as I know, all urbanized societies have low birth rates, white or not.
This is stock off the shelf left wing sociology, which is I guess all of your material.
It's called common sense.
“There are a lot of killers. We’ve got a lot of killers. What, do you think our country’s so innocent? Take a look at what we’ve done, too.” - Donald J. Trump, President of the USA
The Kushner sh*t is greasy - Stevie B.
Simple Minded

Re: Basic income for everyone?

Post by Simple Minded »

Parodite wrote:I feel your predicament, SM :P There is nothing you can do. If "they" just understood the truthfulness of "your" version about how "they" bother themselves with some imaginary "them"! One more move and you'd be just like them :( This cannot be allowed. Just sit still and breath softly. :|

While you're at it, don't forget to pay taxes as you promised! "They" need them, desperately,... especially the Wallstreet gang, Banksters and Gvt party poopers. The thousands of faceless people who are balancing on "the poverty line".. well, as you said: 1) who decides where the poverty line ought to be drawn, and 2) those who think they are poor should just take fate in their own hands, work hard and raise their kids in that spirit too: no free lunch for losers!

This all begs the question why people who only accept voluntary stuff should decide to pay their taxes and receive benefits payed for by other tax payers as they are configured in the current US system. I have no idea what to tell them, but it appears you might have an answer ;) :P
:lol: me thinks "my predicament" exists only in "your" imagination. Entirely beyond my capacity to fix. ;)

The fascinating aspect to my simple mind is, that in the absence of definition or criteria, why some imagine a square is better, others a circle, and others still, a triangle. Then, still based on only their imaginations, they start subdividing people in to groups, according what they themselves imagine the others may think.

Fascinating phenomena, the process of voluntarily choosing foci and interpretations.

"Better" is something all humans want. Finally a unanimous "we" that encompasses all humanity!!!! Yeah "we" finally did it!!! Then come the details and the fracturing into sub-groups. The reason candidates never discuss details or costs. People prefer their imaginations to the messy aspects of reality. Easier to unify people behind the idea of a "better" world than to splain the details and costs.

Regarding doing something about problems, open up your wallet, or donate your time. Nothing new there.

For all their faults, the Saudi Royal Family does mincome better than any civilized nation in the world. Why are more nations not emulating them?
Mr. Perfect
Posts: 16973
Joined: Mon Dec 12, 2011 9:35 am

Re: Basic income for everyone?

Post by Mr. Perfect »

YMix wrote: Laughable indeed. A TFR of 2 is not even replacement rate.
2 is way way way way way way way better than 1.
Since you claim that ideology is the only factor involved, I guess yours is not motivating enough.
I actually didn't claim that, and wouldn't, I have spoke at length on it before, but the bottom line is I think everyone is happy with the leftist TFR of 1.
Then stop complaining about the effects.
I'm not. I'm really happy that the white leftist is breeding out. I won't miss them at all.
As far as I know, all urbanized societies have low birth rates, white or not.
But some are lower than others.
It's called common sense.
It's called possibly your most senseless position to date, and there are so many to choose from.

I'll try to be brief, because this largely a waste of time.. Farming was/is capitalist. Industrialization is beholden to no particular ideology, it's just the way we make stuff. In a real economics class we call it a change in technology, it's not the product of ideology.

But like farming, an industrialized population under capitalism will produce far more wealth than collectivism, socialism/communism lack the economic signalling and incentives requisite for prosperity. Communism and socialism produce poverty, and nothing else.

Hope that helps.
Censorship isn't necessary
User avatar
YMix
Posts: 4631
Joined: Mon Dec 12, 2011 4:53 am
Location: Department of Congruity - Report any outliers here

Re: Basic income for everyone?

Post by YMix »

Mr. Perfect wrote:2 is way way way way way way way better than 1.
But not good enough.
I actually didn't claim that, and wouldn't, I have spoke at length on it before, but the bottom line is I think everyone is happy with the leftist TFR of 1.
Then by all means explain why "conservatives" fail to reach replacement rate. Use your statistics guys. :lol:
I'll try to be brief, because this largely a waste of time..
I know. I've tried to explain things to you before and you just don't get it.
Farming was/is capitalist.
:lol: Nope. Farming was/is pro-market because the farmers need a market to unload their goods, but farming was a way of life, not a business. Business farming displaced millions of "conservatives" who moved to the cities to become "liberals".
Industrialization is beholden to no particular ideology, it's just the way we make stuff.
Industrialization allowed the cities to absorb the mass of former peasants. Of course, it was mostly young-to-adult people who went to the cities and in those cities, away from the behavior shaping systems of small rural communities, they were more or less free to make their own rules.
In a real economics class we call it a change in technology, it's not the product of ideology.
Of course it is. Look at the Roman Empire.
But like farming, an industrialized population under capitalism will produce far more wealth
The production of wealth has certain side effects. Under our particular model, those side effects include reduced birth rates, leftism (did not exist before industrialization), the destruction of the agrarian family, way of life and values, economic subordination of the countryside to the cities (which leads to political and cultural subordination) and so on.
Hope that helps.
Not much. You're boring.
“There are a lot of killers. We’ve got a lot of killers. What, do you think our country’s so innocent? Take a look at what we’ve done, too.” - Donald J. Trump, President of the USA
The Kushner sh*t is greasy - Stevie B.
User avatar
Parodite
Posts: 5641
Joined: Sun Jan 01, 2012 9:43 pm

Re: Basic income for everyone?

Post by Parodite »

Simple Minded wrote:
Parodite wrote:[...] This all begs the question why people who only accept voluntary stuff should decide to pay their taxes and receive benefits payed for by other tax payers as they are configured in the current US system. I have no idea what to tell them, but it appears you might have an answer ;) :P
:lol: me thinks "my predicament" exists only in "your" imagination. Entirely beyond my capacity to fix. ;)

The fascinating aspect to my simple mind is, that in the absence of definition or criteria, why some imagine a square is better, others a circle, and others still, a triangle. Then, still based on only their imaginations, they start subdividing people in to groups, according what they themselves imagine the others may think.

Fascinating phenomena, the process of voluntarily choosing foci and interpretations.

"Better" is something all humans want. Finally a unanimous "we" that encompasses all humanity!!!! Yeah "we" finally did it!!! Then come the details and the fracturing into sub-groups. The reason candidates never discuss details or costs. People prefer their imaginations to the messy aspects of reality. Easier to unify people behind the idea of a "better" world than to splain the details and costs.

Regarding doing something about problems, open up your wallet, or donate your time. Nothing new there.

For all their faults, the Saudi Royal Family does mincome better than any civilized nation in the world. Why are more nations not emulating them?
Maybe a better (or new) thread title would be: "SM discovers reality". ;)

Your general connotations are applicable always and operate during all political discussions on any issue. What and where are the numbers, who decides what and what money from what wallet goes to where etc. That is the core of how politics works. So I'm afraid that what fascinates you is a big "yea duhuh what's new" for me.

Of course you are right about the messy uncertainties in life: certainty is madness indeed. There is no full certainty and guess what: nobody claims there is (minus reli-fundamentalists). Most people accept that though and try make some good guesses, willing to make a bet and go for the action. See what happens. Mincome is not different from any of the other ideas that may or may not be put to the test in reality. People do an amount of thinking and calculus then they throw the ball. Unite with others in teams to throw that ball. For better or worse.

The calculus of mincome I find very convincing and probably too simple or "too good to be true" for most, for now. And there are more advantages to be expected. There are always vested interests that don't want any change as with the war on illegal drugs, but that doesn't mean things won't change in that direction.

A problem I see with mincome is that the idea is often marketed clumsily. "Free money for all" is an oxymoron of course and does not tell the story right. It associates with free lunches and those of course don't exist and never will exist. I would just call/sell it as a social security reform that saves money, keeps the gvt out of things as much as possible and better fits the modern reality of the flex flux labor market.
Deep down I'm very superficial
noddy
Posts: 11318
Joined: Tue Dec 13, 2011 3:09 pm

Re: Basic income for everyone?

Post by noddy »

Parodite wrote:
noddy wrote:it IS an impossibility, their is no way in hell right nor left would make it happen, however in theory (tm) [patent pending] it is a simpler, fairer system for all people that provides a safety net to all, with no politics.
Me ain't that sure yet.. the idea gets more momentum every day. People can do the math.. and in some countries they are crazy enough to do try outs.

I think these are times of extreme flux (SM beware! :P) Things happen that no-one saw coming. Who would have thought that the Bern and Trumpkin steal the show, that the oligurglers, banksters, apparatchiks have their privies exposed freak show style.
its easier in smaller, mono(ish) cultures like you dutchies to get that kind of trusting consensus.

for all that multicultures have some excellent points, the cat herding of various groups who quite often dont even like eachother is sometimes difficult, even more so across big landmass;s with completely different politcs going on.

australia squabbles over if the poor get an extra $4 a week or not, so sacking the entire social security aspect of government isnt even on the radar, its a loony minority viewpoint from a political group that doesnt even get 5% of the vote.

i happen to be in that grouping but its irrelevant :)
ultracrepidarian
User avatar
Parodite
Posts: 5641
Joined: Sun Jan 01, 2012 9:43 pm

Re: Basic income for everyone?

Post by Parodite »

noddy wrote:
Parodite wrote:
noddy wrote:it IS an impossibility, their is no way in hell right nor left would make it happen, however in theory (tm) [patent pending] it is a simpler, fairer system for all people that provides a safety net to all, with no politics.
Me ain't that sure yet.. the idea gets more momentum every day. People can do the math.. and in some countries they are crazy enough to do try outs.

I think these are times of extreme flux (SM beware! :P) Things happen that no-one saw coming. Who would have thought that the Bern and Trumpkin steal the show, that the oligurglers, banksters, apparatchiks have their privies exposed freak show style.
its easier in smaller, mono(ish) cultures like you dutchies to get that kind of trusting consensus.

for all that multicultures have some excellent points, the cat herding of various groups who quite often dont even like eachother is sometimes difficult, even more so across big landmass;s with completely different politcs going on.

australia squabbles over if the poor get an extra $4 a week or not, so sacking the entire social security aspect of government isnt even on the radar, its a loony minority viewpoint from a political group that doesnt even get 5% of the vote.

i happen to be in that grouping but its irrelevant :)
Vested interest... it's a tuffie. Here in Dutchy land the idea does float around... but we are also far away from some big implementation for the same reasons.
Deep down I'm very superficial
Simple Minded

Re: Basic income for everyone?

Post by Simple Minded »

Parodite wrote:
Maybe a better (or new) thread title would be: "SM discovers reality". ;)

Your general connotations are applicable always and operate during all political discussions on any issue. What and where are the numbers, who decides what and what money from what wallet goes to where etc. That is the core of how politics works. So I'm afraid that what fascinates you is a big "yea duhuh what's new" for me.

Of course you are right about the messy uncertainties in life: certainty is madness indeed. There is no full certainty and guess what: nobody claims there is (minus reli-fundamentalists). Most people accept that though and try make some good guesses, willing to make a bet and go for the action. See what happens. Mincome is not different from any of the other ideas that may or may not be put to the test in reality. People do an amount of thinking and calculus then they throw the ball. Unite with others in teams to throw that ball. For better or worse.

The calculus of mincome I find very convincing and probably too simple or "too good to be true" for most, for now. And there are more advantages to be expected. There are always vested interests that don't want any change as with the war on illegal drugs, but that doesn't mean things won't change in that direction.

A problem I see with mincome is that the idea is often marketed clumsily. "Free money for all" is an oxymoron of course and does not tell the story right. It associates with free lunches and those of course don't exist and never will exist. I would just call/sell it as a social security reform that saves money, keeps the gvt out of things as much as possible and better fits the modern reality of the flex flux labor market.
I could not agree with you more regarding red text above. That is why all my questions are directed at the above areas.

When I read a post or article by a true believer that "Unicorns run faster than centaurs." I remain optimistic that someday, by asking a few questions about unicorns and centaurs, I will encounter an individual with some expertise on both, rather than one who "is merely parroting what makes them popular in their peer group" or one who is engaged in thinking that makes them comfortable.

Fascinating to see the same ideas floated decade after decade, in different locations, by different generations, with varying degrees of success, which can often be measured by whether the terminology is changed to hide the mistakes of the past, or those on the other side of the mountain/river/ocean.

Without common terminology and standards of measure, we are all just social creatures, amiably arguing about unicorns and centaurs..... cause that's what social creatures do.

"Those without responsibility have all the answers." If we actually had responsibility for solving these problems, that would really take the fun out of our amiable conversations and banter.

On a practical level mincome is merely govt. downsizing or outsourcing to increase efficiency that the customer demands. Happens in private institutions and families all the time. Getting the buy in of everyone (the proper split of us and them) is tough in the public sector. Competition is needed so the customer can opt out to increase pressure on suppliers. Doesn't seem to exist in two party centralized system.
Mr. Perfect
Posts: 16973
Joined: Mon Dec 12, 2011 9:35 am

Re: Basic income for everyone?

Post by Mr. Perfect »

YMix wrote: But not good enough.
It's before the point of no return. The white liberal TFR is not. According to Darwin, those folks have been rendered unfit members of the species.
Then by all means explain why "conservatives" fail to reach replacement rate. Use your statistics guys. :lol:
Already did, some time ago. What they told me was really illuminating. To move forward, tell us what you think the replacement TFR is and on what basis.
I know. I've tried to explain things to you before and you just don't get it.
Unfortunately I've understood everything you've ever said, up to your tendency to go into sky is purple arguments, I stop there.

The problem is you normally start with wildly ignorant and false claims. 2 off the top of my head are "Republicans could have stopped segregation but chose not to", and "history is never settled", 2 of the most ignorant things I've come across on the internet. There were a few more, but those 2 were so shockingly anti-intellectual that they made an impression and indicate your status as being uneducable.

For starters, in a serious economic debate I always screen out the phonies by asking them to explain present value in their own words. It works every time.

So I ask that of you now.
:lol: Nope. Farming was/is pro-market because the farmers need a market to unload their goods, but farming was a way of life, not a business. Business farming displaced millions of "conservatives" who moved to the cities to become "liberals".
Farming is about making income, making income is a business, many businesses are considered a "way of life" by their participants, farming is used in the most basic economic textbooks as examples of land/labor/capital, opportunity cost, capital accumulation, present value and and and and, please stop polluting the universe with ignorance and take an economics class.

I have boatloads of youtubes on basic economics for you when you are ready to learn. Farming=capitalism. Private property ownership, free exchange of goods and services. Red blooded capitalism.
Of course it is. Look at the Roman Empire.
You can look at them, I am looking at economics. Industrialization is used by all ideologies in the literate world, capitalists just get way more wealthy from it.
Industrialization allowed the cities to absorb the mass of former peasants. Of course, it was mostly young-to-adult people who went to the cities and in those cities, away from the behavior shaping systems of small rural communities, they were more or less free to make their own rules.

The production of wealth has certain side effects. Under our particular model, those side effects include reduced birth rates, leftism (did not exist before industrialization), the destruction of the agrarian family, way of life and values, economic subordination of the countryside to the cities (which leads to political and cultural subordination) and so on.
Ok, here is an example of where you are wildly inarticulate as opposed to your normal false blanket statements. You started out saying I had something to do with the west being in the blender. I didn't. People like me don't have power or influence over Europe, at all, total issues used to explain at length there was no version of the Republican Party in Europe. He convinced me. The last leader somewhat close to being a Republican of any import was Margaret Thatcher and that was some time ago.

So clean this up, try to get some coherency, and maybe this becomes interesting, maybe it doesn't.
Not much. You're boring.
Are you trying to twist the knife again? That's cute. ;)

But we all know your fascination with me knows no bounds. You find me irresistible. The post count proves it.
Censorship isn't necessary
User avatar
YMix
Posts: 4631
Joined: Mon Dec 12, 2011 4:53 am
Location: Department of Congruity - Report any outliers here

Re: Basic income for everyone?

Post by YMix »

Mr. Perfect wrote:It's before the point of no return.
Maybe. It depends whether the trend continues to move downward or not.
Already did, some time ago. What they told me was really illuminating. To move forward, tell us what you think the replacement TFR is and on what basis.
So let's hear it.
The problem is you normally start with wildly ignorant and false claims. 2 off the top of my head are "Republicans could have stopped segregation but chose not to", and "history is never settled", 2 of the most ignorant things I've come across on the internet.
I know you simply can't accept the idea of being wrong. I also realize that you find the idea of things not being settled once and for all in your favor profoundly disturbing. It's okay. Not everyone is capable of coping with uncertainty.
There were a few more, but those 2 were so shockingly anti-intellectual that they made an impression and indicate your status as being uneducable.
Shockingly! :)
For starters, in a serious economic debate I always screen out the phonies by asking them to explain present value in their own words. It works every time.

So I ask that of you now.
It's nice of you to ask.
Farming is about making income, making income is a business
You can look at them, I am looking at economics. Industrialization is used by all ideologies in the literate world, capitalists just get way more wealthy from it.
Interesting. You don't even understand the past. I'm curious: how can you be a "conservative" if you don't even understand what you're supposed to conserve?
You started out saying I had something to do with the west being in the blender. I didn't.
Of course you do. If you support the free market capitalism system, then you support all its side effects.
People like me don't have power or influence over Europe, at all
Then don't talk about Europe.
The last leader somewhat close to being a Republican of any import was Margaret Thatcher and that was some time ago.
The GOP pushes the same sort of free market agenda that brought us here.
“There are a lot of killers. We’ve got a lot of killers. What, do you think our country’s so innocent? Take a look at what we’ve done, too.” - Donald J. Trump, President of the USA
The Kushner sh*t is greasy - Stevie B.
Mr. Perfect
Posts: 16973
Joined: Mon Dec 12, 2011 9:35 am

Re: Basic income for everyone?

Post by Mr. Perfect »

YMix wrote: Maybe. It depends whether the trend continues to move downward or not.
Not really no. What many lo info people don't understand is that while it is certainly possible in the abstract for white leftists to have a baby boom next year or the year after or 5 years from now, a baby boom tomorrow doesn't create more 15 year olds, 20 year olds, 25 year olds, etc, today and you already have too few of them.

Your Titanic has already hit the ice. Darwin awaits.
So let's hear it.
As always, I asked you first. But you got a small taste of it above.
I know you simply can't accept the idea of being wrong.
Compared to who. Where did you accept being wrong about history never being settled or the GOP choosing not to end segregation.
I also realize that you find the idea of things not being settled once and for all in your favor profoundly disturbing. It's okay. Not everyone is capable of coping with uncertainty.
Nice strawman. You said history is never settled, a broad sweeping statement that is laughably, childishly and foolishly false, and you can't admit being wrong about it.
Shockingly! :)
Yeah. I couldn't believe a grown man actually typed that and hit submit.
It's nice of you to ask.
Yeah. And not surprisingly no answer, so we can discount all of your economic statements as ignorant, because you don't anything about economics. I guess that list keeps growing.
Interesting. You don't even understand the past. I'm curious: how can you be a "conservative" if you don't even understand what you're supposed to conserve?
I'll get to that when you answer my questions first. You know how it is, basic manners, you must answer a question before getting to ask one of your own. Basic manners. Just review the list above, answer those questions and I'll be happy to answer yours.
Of course you do. If you support the free market capitalism system, then you support all its side effects.
Uh huh. But by your own words, the problem was industrialization, which is neither left or right. So you have a giant nothingburger again.
Then don't talk about Europe.
Why not. They are self destructing before our eyes and such events need to be cataloged so future generations don't repeat those catastrophes. I don't mind doing it. I don't consider it a burden.
The GOP pushes the same sort of free market agenda that brought us here.
No, the GOP is actually anti-Euro welfare state, that's why you guys hate us so much because we don't support your ideology. I mean if we supported your ideology you would love me.

Basic stuff.
Censorship isn't necessary
User avatar
YMix
Posts: 4631
Joined: Mon Dec 12, 2011 4:53 am
Location: Department of Congruity - Report any outliers here

Re: Basic income for everyone?

Post by YMix »

Mr. Perfect wrote:Not really no. What many lo info people don't understand is that while it is certainly possible in the abstract for white leftists
I wasn't talking about "leftists".
As always, I asked you first.
Nope.

"Then by all means explain why "conservatives" fail to reach replacement rate. Use your statistics guys."

"Already did, some time ago. What they told me was really illuminating. To move forward, tell us what you think the replacement TFR is and on what basis."

Feel free to provide that explanation first.
Compared to who. Where did you accept being wrong about history never being settled or the GOP choosing not to end segregation.
I wasn't wrong about that.
Nice strawman. You said history is never settled, a broad sweeping statement that is laughably, childishly and foolishly false, and you can't admit being wrong about it.
You do know that new information about the past get uncovered all the time. And you should at least realize that the way people see things changes in time. WWI, which took place a mere 100 years ago, used to be a crusade for democracy and solely the Germans' fault. Today, that view is known to be mostly propaganda. So it goes.
Yeah. And not surprisingly no answer, so we can discount all of your economic statements as ignorant, because you don't anything about economics. I guess that list keeps growing.
Oh, my! :lol:
I'll get to that when you answer my questions first.
I don't really expect an answer from you on that one. I just wonder.
You know how it is, basic manners, you must answer a question before getting to ask one of your own. Basic manners.
Maybe, just maybe, I'll allow that in some countries it's good manners to answer a host's questions before a guest gets to answer, but you're not a host here and this is an international forum, not USA. Therefore, you don't get to make the rules.
Uh huh. But by your own words, the problem was industrialization, which is neither left or right.
No, I said "Industrialization demanded urbanization". The closing of the commons was a separate event. EDIT: Leftists came pretty late in the game in Europe and even later in the rest of the world. It's true, though, that they wholeheartedly supported industrialization and urbanization and tried to square the circle by banning abortion in defiance of Papa Lenin's ideas.
Why not. They are self destructing before our eyes and such events need to be cataloged so future generations don't repeat those catastrophes. I don't mind doing it. I don't consider it a burden.
Most of the world is self-destructing.
No, the GOP is actually anti-Euro welfare state,
You mean the GOP is anti-Euro welfare state, but not pro-free market?
that's why you guys hate us so much because we don't support your ideology.
See below.
I mean if we supported your ideology you would love me.
I wouldn't. But at least I can put a name to your condition: "In psychology, the false-consensus effect or false-consensus bias is an attributional type of cognitive bias whereby a person tends to overestimate the extent to which his opinions, beliefs, preferences, values, and habits are normal and typical of those of others (i.e., that others also think the same way that they do)."
“There are a lot of killers. We’ve got a lot of killers. What, do you think our country’s so innocent? Take a look at what we’ve done, too.” - Donald J. Trump, President of the USA
The Kushner sh*t is greasy - Stevie B.
Mr. Perfect
Posts: 16973
Joined: Mon Dec 12, 2011 9:35 am

Re: Basic income for everyone?

Post by Mr. Perfect »

YMix wrote: I wasn't talking about "leftists".
Good, the less they know about their problems the better.
Nope.

"Then by all means explain why "conservatives" fail to reach replacement rate. Use your statistics guys."

"Already did, some time ago. What they told me was really illuminating. To move forward, tell us what you think the replacement TFR is and on what basis."

Feel free to provide that explanation first.
Oh, sorry ymix. I thought I had asked a question first. I can admit to being wrong, how about that :) . Now it's your turn to admit to being wrong.

The answer is, no one knows the causal relationship between birthrates and various cultures, we only know that it is happening. Certain cultures have measurably different birthrates than others, and some are in the basement. All those happen to be leftists. We can debate the whys forever but for some reason Western conservatives have twice as many kids as white leftists.

TBH I don't care that much why, if it continues. :)
I wasn't wrong about that.
:) Yes, you sure were. Childishly and ignorantly, along with the other stuff. Time to admit to where you are wrong ymix.
You do know that new information about the past get uncovered all the time. And you should at least realize that the way people see things changes in time. WWI, which took place a mere 100 years ago, used to be a crusade for democracy and solely the Germans' fault. Today, that view is known to be mostly propaganda. So it goes.
Nice story bro. But what you said, and stuck with, was "history is never settled" which is foolish, childish and ignorantly wrong, and you can't admit it.
Oh, my! :lol:
It is funny. I really enjoy exposing the deficiencies of leftists.
I don't really expect an answer from you on that one. I just wonder.
I'd be happy to give you an answer if you followed the manners. I answered your question above, your turn now.
Maybe, just maybe, I'll allow that in some countries it's good manners to answer a host's questions before a guest gets to answer, but you're not a host here and this is an international forum, not USA. Therefore, you don't get to make the rules.
Manners aren't about forums or hosts. Hosts of forums can have the worst manners of all.
No, I said "Industrialization demanded urbanization".
Sure. Nothing to do with capitalism.
The closing of the commons was a separate event. EDIT: Leftists came pretty late in the game in Europe and even later in the rest of the world. It's true, though, that they wholeheartedly supported industrialization and urbanization and tried to square the circle by banning abortion in defiance of Papa Lenin's ideas.
Ok. But leftists are industrialists.
Most of the world is self-destructing.
Some way way way worse than others.
You mean the GOP is anti-Euro welfare state, but not pro-free market?
You and your binaries. I'll let you sort that out with Simple MInded.
See below.

I wouldn't. But at least I can put a name to your condition: "In psychology, the false-consensus effect or false-consensus bias is an attributional type of cognitive bias whereby a person tends to overestimate the extent to which his opinions, beliefs, preferences, values, and habits are normal and typical of those of others (i.e., that others also think the same way that they do)."
Great stories. However back to the battle, you have another laughable claim about me have something to do with the decimation of Europe, and of course that is laughably false.

The fate of Europe is in the hands of leftists. It is self destructing as we always prophesied.
Censorship isn't necessary
Mr. Perfect
Posts: 16973
Joined: Mon Dec 12, 2011 9:35 am

Re: Basic income for everyone?

Post by Mr. Perfect »

Mr. Perfect wrote:[
I know you simply can't accept the idea of being wrong.
Compared to who.
I guess this terrified you to your core.
Censorship isn't necessary
User avatar
Heracleum Persicum
Posts: 11571
Joined: Sat Dec 22, 2012 7:38 pm

Re: Basic income for everyone?

Post by Heracleum Persicum »

.


:lol: :lol: :lol:


Very basic :lol: :lol: :lol:



.
User avatar
YMix
Posts: 4631
Joined: Mon Dec 12, 2011 4:53 am
Location: Department of Congruity - Report any outliers here

Re: Basic income for everyone?

Post by YMix »

Mr. Perfect wrote:Good, the less they know about their problems the better.
:roll:
Oh, sorry ymix. I thought I had asked a question first. I can admit to being wrong, how about that :) . Now it's your turn to admit to being wrong.
About what?
The answer is, no one knows the causal relationship between birthrates and various cultures, we only know that it is happening.
Then how do you know "conservatism" helps birthrates?
Certain cultures have measurably different birthrates than others, and some are in the basement. All those happen to be leftists.
Actually, the worst fertility rates (CIA estimates) belong to:

217 Montserrat (UK) 1.30
218 Bosnia and Herzegovina 1.27
219 British Virgin Islands (UK) 1.26
220 Korea, South 1.25
221 Hong Kong (China) 1.18
222 Taiwan 1.12
223 Macau (China) 0.94
224 Singapore 0.81

And the best fertility rates:

1 Niger 6.76
2 Burundi 6.09
3 Mali 6.06
4 Somalia 5.99
5 Uganda 5.89
6 Burkina Faso 5.86
7 Zambia 5.72
8 Malawi 5.60
9 Angola 5.37
10 Afghanistan 5.33
11 South Sudan 5.31
12 Mozambique 5.21
13 Nigeria 5.19
14 Ethiopia 5.15
15 Timor-Leste 5.01
16 Benin 4.95
17 Tanzania 4.89
18 Guinea 4.88
19 Sierra Leone 4.80
20 Cameroon 4.76
21 Liberia 4.70
22 Republic of the Congo 4.68
23 Congo, Democratic Republic of the 4.66
24 Equatorial Guinea 4.57
25 Chad 4.55
26 Sao Tome and Principe 4.54
27 Rwanda 4.53
28 Togo 4.48
29 Gabon 4.46
30 Senegal 4.44
31 Central African Republic 4.41
32 Guinea-Bissau 4.23
33 Madagascar 4.20
34 Iraq 4.12
35 Gaza Strip (Palestinian Territories) 4.08
36 Ghana 4.06
37 Eritrea 4.02
38 Western Sahara 4.00
39 Mauritania 4.00
40 Yemen 3.91
41 Sudan 3.79
42 Gambia, The 3.73
43 Comoros 3.60
44 Côte d’Ivoire 3.54
45 Zimbabwe 3.53
46 Kenya 3.31
47 Solomon Islands 3.28
48 Tonga 3.26
49 Vanuatu 3.25
50 Jordan 3.17
51 Papua New Guinea 3.16
52 Marshall Islands 3.15
53 Philippines 3.09
54 Tuvalu 3.00
55 Belize 2.95
56 American Samoa (US) 2.92
57 Guatemala 2.90
58 Nauru 2.88
59 Oman 2.86
60 Samoa 2.84
61 Egypt 2.83
62 Laos 2.82
63 Swaziland 2.80
64 Honduras 2.78
65 Algeria 2.78
66 West Bank (Palestinian Territories) 2.76
67 Pakistan 2.75
68 Bolivia 2.73
69 Lesotho 2.72
70 Tajikistan 2.71
71 Haiti 2.69
72 Israel 2.68
73 Kyrgyzstan 2.66
74 Syria 2.60
75 Cambodia 2.60
76 Malaysia 2.55
77 Micronesia, Federated States of 2.49
78 Kiribati 2.48
79 Kuwait 2.48
80 India 2.48
81 Fiji 2.47

As you can see, there's an obvious correlation between economic development and fertility. The highest fertility rates belong to the least developed countries. Maybe they're all packed with conservatives
Nice story bro. But what you said, and stuck with, was "history is never settled" which is foolish, childish and ignorantly wrong, and you can't admit it.
And this kind of crap isn't going to make me admit anything either. You want to argue your case, by all means go ahead and we'll see where the debate leads us.
Manners aren't about forums or hosts. Hosts of forums can have the worst manners of all.
Not relevant.
Sure. Nothing to do with capitalism.
How can you have industrialization without capitalism from the late 18th century to the Bolshevik revolution? How can you have industrialization without free markets for labor, real estate and capital? When exactly did capitalism begin, according to your theories?
Ok. But leftists are industrialists.
So?
Some way way way worse than others.
I can see that. Compared to Niger's massive birth rate, US "conservatives" are in real trouble.
You and your binaries. I'll let you sort that out with Simple MInded.
I'm trying to figure out what you mean. I said the GOP is pro-free market. You answered it's anti-Euro. I don't see how that's even supposed to be an answer, hence my follow-up question.
Great stories. However back to the battle, you have another laughable claim about me have something to do with the decimation of Europe, and of course that is laughably false.
If you support the current capitalist and free market system, you're part of the problem.
The fate of Europe is in the hands of leftists. It is self destructing as we always prophesied.
We? Always? I don't suppose you could define who we is and how far back those prophecies go?
“There are a lot of killers. We’ve got a lot of killers. What, do you think our country’s so innocent? Take a look at what we’ve done, too.” - Donald J. Trump, President of the USA
The Kushner sh*t is greasy - Stevie B.
Mr. Perfect
Posts: 16973
Joined: Mon Dec 12, 2011 9:35 am

Re: Basic income for everyone?

Post by Mr. Perfect »

YMix wrote: :roll:
It's not the end of the world, it's just the end of your people. You will not be missed.
About what?
Anything you choose. It's your choice.
Then how do you know "conservatism" helps birthrates?
Where did I say that.
Actually, the worst fertility rates (CIA estimates) belong to:

217 Montserrat (UK) 1.30
218 Bosnia and Herzegovina 1.27
219 British Virgin Islands (UK) 1.26
220 Korea, South 1.25
221 Hong Kong (China) 1.18
222 Taiwan 1.12
223 Macau (China) 0.94
224 Singapore 0.81
I thought it was known that we were talking about Western nations.
And the best fertility rates:

As you can see, there's an obvious correlation between economic development and fertility. The highest fertility rates belong to the least developed countries. Maybe they're all packed with conservatives
If you were numerate and had taken a statistics class you would know that correlation is not causation.
And this kind of crap isn't going to make me admit anything either. You want to argue your case, by all means go ahead and we'll see where the debate leads us.
We already argued it, you already lost, and you already can't admit. You are the very thing you despise, someone who can't admit when they are wrong. It's nothing to do with me.
Not relevant.
Manners are always relevant.
How can you have industrialization without capitalism from the late 18th century to the Bolshevik revolution? How can you have industrialization without free markets for labor, real estate and capital? When exactly did capitalism begin, according to your theories?
Industrialization is simply building factories. Socialists, Capitalists, Muslims, Buddhists, are all capable and have all built factories.

There is nothing capitalist about buildings. Everybody makes buildings. You have another enormous nothingburger built on stark ignorance.
So?
So it blows your original statement completely our of the water. Like so many others.
I can see that. Compared to Niger's massive birth rate, US "conservatives" are in real trouble.
How so. Nothing happening in Niger makes me feel in trouble, at all.
I'm trying to figure out what you mean. I said the GOP is pro-free market. You answered it's anti-Euro. I don't see how that's even supposed to be an answer, hence my follow-up question.
It was completely unnecessary and irrelevant to the thread. You said I put Europe in the blender because I invented industrialization out of capitalism.

Industrialization is just state of technology, it has nothing to do with left right ideology. I am not to blame at all for the destruction of Europe. At all. It's all on the heads of left wing Europeans. Just another totally bogus ymix crusade.
If you support the current capitalist and free market system, you're part of the problem.
No I'm not. Europe is a welfare state. Europe is going bankrupt and childless, disappearing, which is to do with political decisions, mostly regarding leftist welfare state ideology and unknown sociological causes in regard to fertility. If white leftist TFR is 1 across the West then I'm ok with it, I don't feel the need to figure out the direct cause.
We? Always? I don't suppose you could define who we is and how far back those prophecies go?
Conservatives, probably over 100 years.
Censorship isn't necessary
User avatar
YMix
Posts: 4631
Joined: Mon Dec 12, 2011 4:53 am
Location: Department of Congruity - Report any outliers here

Re: Basic income for everyone?

Post by YMix »

Mr. Perfect wrote:It's not the end of the world, it's just the end of your people. You will not be missed.
None of us will after a while.
Anything you choose. It's your choice.
No answer, no surprise.
Where did I say that.
When you blamed low birth rates on "liberal" ideology and bragged about superior "conservative" birthrates.
I thought it was known that we were talking about Western nations.
No, it's not known. I asked you why "conservatives" fail to reach replacement rate and you said "various cultures". I gave you an example of many cultures.
If you were numerate and had taken a statistics class you would know that correlation is not causation.
Feel free to come up with more accurate causation.
We already argued it, you already lost, and you already can't admit. You are the very thing you despise, someone who can't admit when they are wrong. It's nothing to do with me.
We argued and I concluded that you don't understand history and how it is written.
Manners are always relevant.
Your attempt to change the subject is not relevant.
Industrialization is simply building factories. Socialists, Capitalists, Muslims, Buddhists, are all capable and have all built factories.

There is nothing capitalist about buildings. Everybody makes buildings. You have another enormous nothingburger built on stark ignorance.
Interesting. You look at industrialization in the abstract and refuse to acknowledge that economic phenomena may affect the society, nor that they are part of or intertwine with other trends. Well, you can lead a horse to water...
So it blows your original statement completely our of the water. Like so many others.
:lol:
How so. Nothing happening in Niger makes me feel in trouble, at all.
The future clearly belongs to Niger. And Burundi.
It was completely unnecessary and irrelevant to the thread. You said I put Europe in the blender because I invented industrialization out of capitalism.
Where did I say that? :lol:
Industrialization is just state of technology, it has nothing to do with left right ideology. I am not to blame at all for the destruction of Europe. At all. It's all on the heads of left wing Europeans. Just another totally bogus ymix crusade.
Leftism is simply helping others. Socialists, Capitalists, Muslims, Buddhists, are all capable and have helped others.
No I'm not. Europe is a welfare state. Europe is going bankrupt and childless, disappearing, which is to do with political decisions, mostly regarding leftist welfare state ideology and unknown sociological causes in regard to fertility. If white leftist TFR is 1 across the West then I'm ok with it, I don't feel the need to figure out the direct cause.
There is nothing leftist about help. Everybody helps. You have another enormous nothingburger built on stark ignorance.
Conservatives, probably over 100 years.
Really? The Adams brothers were conservatives back in the day and they definitely didn't sound like you. Actually, they were anti-capitalist.
“There are a lot of killers. We’ve got a lot of killers. What, do you think our country’s so innocent? Take a look at what we’ve done, too.” - Donald J. Trump, President of the USA
The Kushner sh*t is greasy - Stevie B.
Mr. Perfect
Posts: 16973
Joined: Mon Dec 12, 2011 9:35 am

Re: Basic income for everyone?

Post by Mr. Perfect »

YMix wrote: None of us will after a while.
Some sooner than others. And then what happens after this life is really interesting.
No answer, no surprise.
So you won't admit to ever being wrong about anything. Imagine the irony.
When you blamed low birth rates on "liberal" ideology and bragged about superior "conservative" birthrates.
And where did I do that (citation needed). Provide a direct quote.
No, it's not known. I asked you why "conservatives" fail to reach replacement rate and you said "various cultures". I gave you an example of many cultures.
Ok, I"m referencing Western cultures. I don't have any interest in other cultures for this topic. All I know is that white leftists are past the point of no return, while western conservatives are not. I'm happy about it.
Feel free to come up with more accurate causation.
It wouldn't be free and I don't want to spend the money on it.
We argued and I concluded that you don't understand history and how it is written.
And you couldn't name the winner of the first world series, and so don't understand history, at all.
Your attempt to change the subject is not relevant.
Manners are always relevant. It's the best way to address any subject, with manners.
Interesting. You look at industrialization in the abstract and refuse to acknowledge that economic phenomena may affect the society, not that they are part of or intertwine with other trends. Well, you can lead a horse to water...
Just going with the facts. There is nothing left right ideology about a factory, you are simply wrong again in this claim. Both the left and right love factories.

The problem is the rest of your thesis is erased by this fact. Another erased ymix theory because of an ignorant foundation.
:lol:
I too have found it entertaining.
The future clearly belongs to Niger. And Burundi.
Please bet everything you have on that. Please.
Where did I say that? :lol:
At the beginning.
Leftism is simply helping others.
How come they never get around to it.
There is nothing leftist about help.
Boy. Are you right about that.
Everybody helps.
Not everybody helps.
You have another enormous nothingburger built on stark ignorance.
I wish, it must be a lot of fun to cook up nothingburgers, you guys do it so much.
Really? The Adams brothers were conservatives back in the day and they definitely didn't sound like you. Actually, they were anti-capitalist.
Sure. The only conservatives in history. The Adams brothers. And by the way how do you know the history won't change on that. You aren't suggesting settled history are you.
Last edited by Mr. Perfect on Tue Apr 19, 2016 12:35 am, edited 1 time in total.
Censorship isn't necessary
Mr. Perfect
Posts: 16973
Joined: Mon Dec 12, 2011 9:35 am

Re: Basic income for everyone?

Post by Mr. Perfect »

Quick review..
YMix wrote:
Mr. Perfect wrote:The left turned the west into the blender
Everyone took turns at revving the blender, including you.
Censorship isn't necessary
Mr. Perfect
Posts: 16973
Joined: Mon Dec 12, 2011 9:35 am

Re: Basic income for everyone?

Post by Mr. Perfect »

And what did that mean? See bolded. "I", being a right winger had nothing to do with this, industrialization not uniquely being right wing or capitalist.
YMix wrote: You complain that the west was put through the blender and I'm supposed to be bitter? Industrialization demanded urbanization.
Censorship isn't necessary
Mr. Perfect
Posts: 16973
Joined: Mon Dec 12, 2011 9:35 am

Re: Basic income for everyone?

Post by Mr. Perfect »

Mr. Perfect wrote:
I know you simply can't accept the idea of being wrong.
Compared to who.
I guess this terrified you to your core.
Censorship isn't necessary
User avatar
Parodite
Posts: 5641
Joined: Sun Jan 01, 2012 9:43 pm

Re: Basic income for everyone?

Post by Parodite »

3ks064fU7_M

Everywhere where economies do better and women have more control over their own lives, birthrates drop to around 2. The correlation between birthrate and western left-right conceptions is insignificant if not absent in the total picture. One needs to be some sort of surrealist to insist on that nevertheless.
Deep down I'm very superficial
User avatar
Parodite
Posts: 5641
Joined: Sun Jan 01, 2012 9:43 pm

Re: Basic income for everyone?

Post by Parodite »

Simple Minded wrote:On a practical level mincome is merely govt. downsizing or outsourcing to increase efficiency that the customer demands. Happens in private institutions and families all the time. Getting the buy in of everyone (the proper split of us and them) is tough in the public sector. Competition is needed so the customer can opt out to increase pressure on suppliers. Doesn't seem to exist in two party centralized system.
Yes I agree esp. with your last observation. The US two-party system and the vested $interest groups that control the show gives very little hope that alternative ideas can emerge and compete freely before elections and be tested after elections as an implemented policy. On the other hand.. thanks to Trumpy and Berning at least some of the major issues now have a big spotlight on them that the vested forces would have rather kept under the carpet if it were only up to them. And since the only constant in life is change... it is not possible not to be hopeful :)
Deep down I'm very superficial
User avatar
YMix
Posts: 4631
Joined: Mon Dec 12, 2011 4:53 am
Location: Department of Congruity - Report any outliers here

Re: Basic income for everyone?

Post by YMix »

Mr. Perfect wrote:Some sooner than others. And then what happens after this life is really interesting.
I'm curious about the next Christian heaven.
So you won't admit to ever being wrong about anything. Imagine the irony.
You meant being wrong in general? Sure, I've been wrong about stuff.
And where did I do that (citation needed). Provide a direct quote.
"In the US conservatives have a TFR of 2, white liberals 1. The destruction is from ideologies of choice, not farming vs office work." - this is you blaming "liberal" birth rates on ideology.
"2 is way way way way way way way better than 1." - this is you bragging about "conservative" birth rates.
Ok, I"m referencing Western cultures. I don't have any interest in other cultures for this topic. All I know is that white leftists are past the point of no return, while western conservatives are not. I'm happy about it.
Maybe, maybe not. Ideologies are adopted, not just inherited. On the other hand, a liberal attitude is more typical of prosperous times.
It wouldn't be free and I don't want to spend the money on it.
Ah, a new version of the "what's in it for me" dodge. I thought you said we could ask you anything?
And you couldn't name the winner of the first world series, and so don't understand history, at all.
Can you name the winner of the first chariot race sponsored by Trajan after his rise to the purple?
Manners are always relevant. It's the best way to address any subject, with manners.
It's bad manners to make up rules about manners when things don't go your way.
Just going with the facts. There is nothing left right ideology about a factory, you are simply wrong again in this claim. Both the left and right love factories.
Part of the reason why all industrialized countries experience low birth rates.
Please bet everything you have on that. Please.
I'm just applying your theory. You seem to think that high birth rates are the key to the future. Seems that Nigerians have bigger keys. :)
At the beginning.
I said that you invented industrialization out of capitalism? By all means provide a quote.
How come they never get around to it.
How do you know they don't?
Boy. Are you right about that.
Not everybody helps.
Well, there are some greedy folks walking around, so... yeah. You're right.
Sure. The only conservatives in history. The Adams brothers. And by the way how do you know the history won't change on that. You aren't suggesting settled history are you.
It may change. After all, you've tried to make Hitler into a leftist.
“There are a lot of killers. We’ve got a lot of killers. What, do you think our country’s so innocent? Take a look at what we’ve done, too.” - Donald J. Trump, President of the USA
The Kushner sh*t is greasy - Stevie B.
Post Reply