An open letter to UBI advocate Scott Santens – Medium
medium.com/@amandoabreu/an-open-letter-to-ubi...Posted Nov 5, 2018, 12:59 PM UTC
28113
medium.com
The core problem UBI solves is a market solution to economic growth and making people's lives easier. The core adjustment in bargaining power for the labour market means it becomes easier to get a job if you want one, and it becomes easier to create disruptive new businesses/projects.
The comparisons to communism are wrong because the problems of communism are entirely that advancement is based on loyalty and permissions granted to the loyal. UBI is freedom to pursue life, and if some choose "too much" leisure, then everyone that wants to choose wealth has an easier, less competitive, path towards success.
Very few people rely for their success on making life harder for everyone else. But they tend to be the most powerful. Where universal health care exists, there is no widespread drive to eliminate it. Doing so would make people's lives harder. In the US, we could eliminate Social security and medicare. Make people's lives harder. I don't think it could be a popular proposal.
Even though one path to business success is making people's lives harder so that they are willing to accept any offer that lets them escape their oppression, a completely viable path to business success, is to leverage people's easier lives to sell them more stuff, even if it also means paying people more to collect consumer money.
When people mistakenly look back on the desperation that poverty "motivated" them to escape, and lift themselves out of, they don't compare it to a world where potential employers called them 3 times a day to give them great offers that would have provided an easier path to success.
8
UBI as suggested, as single state welfare scheme, doesn’t provide a market solution to economic growth, and only makes some people’s lives easier
We can’t guarantee improvement in even a majority of lives from a token BI payment, when control over money creation and law remains in the hands of a few, particularly when that token payment is inconsistent and only made to people in wealthy countries
Including each of us in the process and profit of money creation establishes a per capita maximum to money creation, at a fixed and affordable cost, a stable, sufficient, and sustainable money supply
We each share the affordable interest equally, so the UBI is the same money we pay the interest with, so the UBI costs no more than the sustainable interest we pay to maintain our money supply
...and it replaces the bond market & fractional reserve banking
The problem addressed is slavery, the ownership of rights to our labor by State
The correction is structural individual sovereignty, self ownership
1
single state welfare scheme
the big difference from welfare, like the ACA, is that universal coverage is unconditional. You don't have to stay poor to have support.
only makes some people’s lives easier
My vision for UBI achieves a net tax reduction for 90% of people, and the top 10% already have an easy life, and would benefit the most from resulting economic growth of UBI, and I predict, benefit more than their tax increases.
3
We can’t have economic stability in isolation, that’s the flaw in MMT
So, Universal is not applicable to only the citizens of a wealthy country
Economic growth isn’t possible without increasing money supply, as long as few have inequitable control over the process of money creation, those few may manipulate any economic factor at will, as they do currently
Without disrupting that control, without individual self ownership, we can expect only superficial change for enough people to control the rest
Including each of us equally in the process and profit of money creation improves the lives of each human on the planet
Money distributed from State without exchange is welfare, a gift, redistribution of wealth if collected from taxes, unstable increase in money supply if simply spent into existence
Money distributed from the banking system in exchange for our agreement to cooperate is income from secure capital
If our arguments for UBI are arguments for human rights, we can’t consider the citizenry of one country as Universal, so the term is used deceptively
1
Money creation is not ideal for bankers. It pushes up inflation and interest rates, and that is actually bad for them because older loans/bonds that they own go down in value, and as interest rates rise, borrowers have lower willingness/ability to repay.
The inflationary costs of money printing are a fairly equal tax on wealth.
Recent monetary policy admittedly though has been designed to inflate assets which is free money for the wealthy.
I'm not sure if you are suggesting "QE for the people" form of UBI. I'm ok with some of UBI's funding coming from that source.
1
In the US, we could eliminate Social security and medicare.
This is such bullshit. Show me how your numbers add up.
0†
I'm not saying its a good idea, even if UBI would replace those, I'm not suggesting it in that context.
I'm saying that if you want to make life harder for people, making 50-70 year olds work 3 full time jobs at low pay to survive retirement and medical expenses, then eliminating SS/medicare would successfully make life hard for more people. Having SS/medicare makes life easier than not having it.
5
I'm not suggesting SS/medicare don't work.
SS is the largest transfer of wealth from young poor people to rich old people in the history of the world. As a welfare program it does work.
The healthcare system we have is utterly fucked and is a topic for another discussion but I do not support the status quo at all on that topic (and I'm taking about everyone not just medicare).
0
SS is the largest transfer of wealth from young poor people to rich old people in the history of the world.
The value proposition of SS, is that you fund your own retirement "heaven" (easier life) during your hellish working (hard life) years. It was designed so that you pay what you get out, though I appreciate that the design wasn't completely enforced, and u/iateone 's comment is helpful.
The absolute entirety of objections to UBI or universal healthcare is that struggle and dignity earned from overcoming struggle is the best life to impose on you. Gains from the economy should flow only to the rich born on 3rd base.
OP's blog post has essentially internalized deserving such shabby treament (moeliedetector.gif) . Those that come up with alternatives to UBI that are things like guaranteed job chaingangs, and other onerous conditions on welfare, do so with some appreciationg that life must be made hard.
Millions of African Americans spend less than 16 hours per day picking cotton. Making life hard on people is one way to "fix" that. Those that want to cut welfare/SS/healthcare or bring back slavery would point to higher employment rates as "proof" that these actions "worked".
5
SS has been a transfer of wealth from the working class to the wealthy. SS has taken in more than it has paid out pretty much every year from its inception. Our Congress has used this excess money to lower taxes on the wealthy and those with high incomes--the surplus at the end of Bill Clinton's presidency--due to excess revenue from SS taxes--was used as an excuse during George W Bush's presidency to lower taxes--not payroll and SS taxes, but to lower wealth and income taxes.
2
There are two simple answers to the question of "why aren't you hearing me." The first is that you have to pass many filters to get noticed in the first place. The second is that the time spent engaging you has to present a clear enough return on the investment of time that it's worthwhile given all the other things that could be done with that time.
Note that neither of these issues are driven by emotional issues, but they have a deeply personal effect - that in large part, you don't matter. This is true for almost everyone.
6
Correct, but he has answered previous posts of mine with a dismissive attitude assuming I started to think about these issues yesterday, and ignores me when I speak to him privately. But it's a conversation that needs to be done in speech form.
0†
A conversation done in speech form can more often be won by the one in the wrong by using different techniques. Conversation done in text gives one time to fully prepare rebuttals and cite sources which both parties can examine. Why would he spend time on you if you seem completely set in your beliefs? Would you give a flat earther your time just because he's spent a lot of time thinking of reasons why the world is flat?
4
I'm not the one that seems set on my beliefs, though. I'm aiming for discussion. I happen to be one of those people that can see both sides of any argument, and I could 100% guaranteed defend UBI to a UBI hater if I chose to, but I'm not looking at changing anyone's mind but my own. Does that sound reasonable?
1
Conversation needn’t be competitive
1
Yeah, I'm not trying to "win". The only thing I'm actually trying to do is improve something I see massive flaws in. And ff it "can't be improved", my ideology detector beeps.
1
Also: To expedite solutions, communication should be a good mix of text and speech, otherwise, in the military, everyone would communicate only via slack.
1
As one of the anti-UBI people that hang out here I can assure you that you won't get a response of any substance from Scott. He's much more comfortable in his ivory tower writing articles than he is responding to any kind of conversation.
In fact this entire sub is mostly an echo chamber that's fairly hostile to other points of view. I really don't give a shit so I just post what I want, but this is communist central for the most part. UBI is communism 2.0 and it would go a long way towards changing my mind if there were some substantial answers like you are asking for, but those won't be forthcoming because UBI isn't easy to defend.
-5
Where do you see that UBI is communism ? Have you ever read what is the definition of Communism ? It's the common ownership of the means of production, the absence of social classes, money and state.
It seems like a lazy critique from people completely uneducated about political ideologies.
9
Whether you own the thing or confiscate the profits it's the same deal. It really makes no difference whether or not the paper says the government owns it if you have to give it the control. The only real question is where you draw the line.
Regardless something doesn't have to actually be the exact description of communism to have the same silly flaws.
-3
Ivory tower? Lol.
We all know UBI isn't communism. Milton Friedman wasn't a communist. Friedrich Hayek wasn't a communist. So why did they both like UBI? Because they weren't as smart as you?
Why have over 100 CEOs in Canada signed an open letter in support of basic income as being good for business in Canada? Because they are all communist and Canada is communist?
UBI is easy to defend, especially in comparison to the existing safety net that punishes people for working, requires bureaucrats and administration that limits personal choices and makes people's decisions for them, excludes many people who should and are even meant to be included, and is ill-designed for the future of work, let alone the present of work.
I get it. You are an ideologue. You have certain views about people, and have a hard time with critical thinking. I don't know your true issues with basic income, but it's not about capitalism vs communism because so many capitalists support UBI to save capitalism. Hell, there are actual communists who hate UBI because they fear it will save capitalism from its own destruction and that's what they want.
So why do you dislike UBI so much? Is it because brown people will get the same thing as you? Is it because you believe you have earned everything you have and how dare other people get anything because in your zero-sum game thinking others must lose so that you may win? Is it because you believe suffering is good because you have suffered and thus everyone else must suffer too?
I don't think we'll ever know the real reason you are anti-UBI. It's possible you don't even and it just feels wrong. That's okay though. It doesn't matter. When UBI happens and you start getting your checks, I don't think you'll have any problem whatsoever cashing them.
5
So why did they both like UBI?
Friedman was a pragmatist. If we are going to have welfare he would prefer it be in the form of a negative income tax which is a UBI scheme. This somewhat got encoded as the earned income tax credit back in the day and is still around.
I'm not convinced at all that he would support a universal UBI of the scope being pushed in this forum. His argument was one of practicality and efficiency, not that robots are going to take all the jobs and we will all live on the dole.
Why have over 100 CEOs in Canada signed an open letter in support of basic income as being good for business in Canada? Because they are all communist and Canada is communist?
You'd have to ask them but most of it is likely posturing on their part.
I get it. You are an ideologue. You have certain views about people, and have a hard time with critical thinking.
You have this almost exactly opposite. I actually started out as a proponent of UBI and then thought my way out of it. I think it will destroy society in a couple of generations.
So why do you dislike UBI so much?
Simple, I'm being asked to pay for it and I think it will literally destroy society in a couple of generations.
I would have MUCH less of an issue if it was a program that you could join or reject. I want no part of it, but if you find a group of people who want to pool their money and give each other a minimum income feel free. I don't see why you need to rope me into your scheme.
Is it because brown people will get the same thing as you?
Just to be clear I'm an immigrant with a substantial amount of black people in my immediate family. The idea that people who are against UBI are racist is a fucking low blow. Get off your high horse.
When UBI happens and you start getting your checks, I don't think you'll have any problem whatsoever cashing them.
I would not cash them except as a rebate against taxes anyway. I'm the guy who will be paying for all of this not getting a benefit from it.
1
Why can’t it just be dropping means-testing? We’re not communist but we decided a long time ago that letting grandma starve and feeding the hungry is in our national interest and so we became market socialists. That’s what we have now. UBI could be a way to make the current system cheaper to administer.
I can already anticipate the response. UBI diehards will say half measures won’t work and anti-UBI folks will object to taking money away from rich people. I think it could be phased in by liberalizing existing programs to be no-strings attached payments.
4
Why can’t it just be dropping means-testing?
Feel free to start a charity and give money away. You will quickly find there is no limit to the amount of free money you can give away.
In other words, means testing is there to try and fx the supply/demand problem you get when you give stuff away.
Food banks have similar issues where they basically creat their own clientele.
We’re not communist but we decided a long time ago that letting grandma starve and feeding the hungry is in our national interest and so we became market socialists.
So let's be really clear here that this has zero to do with grandma starving. We already have social security and other services for that. That being said I still send my mom some money every month to make her life a bit easier.
I can already anticipate the response. UBI diehards will say half measures won’t work and anti-UBI folks will object to taking money away from rich people. I think it could be phased in by liberalizing existing programs to be no-strings attached payments.
Any discussion about this is pointless without numbers. The government is already drowning in debt.
2
Physician, heal thyself.
1
This open letter is lame. It reminds me of STAN in that Eminem song. The writer needs to do more independent reading into the topic, instead of hounding one of the UBI proponents he's happened to come accross.
6
The subtitle was on purpose exactly the lyrics from STAN. The writer has done a literal fuck-ton of reading on the topic and would like a serious discussion with someone that cares about UBI as much as he does.
All the questions aren't final, they're discussion-starter questions and just on question #1 one could argue for weeks or months.
-1
Would you be the writer by any chance?
2
Did you figure that out with your own independent research?
0
As an outspoken proponent of UBI, allow me to tackle some of these questions. I consider myself well versed in the issues, but perhaps my choice of venues mean I'm not very well heard.
What problems does a basic income solve?
Technological unemployment. Neoliberals like to say the problem doesn't exist. New jobs we couldn't have imagined 100 years ago and such, but the reality is that jobs are disappearing faster than they're being created. That's the whole point of technology. With an abundance of labor, this means wages go down and this in turn suppresses aggregate demand, slowing the economy down as a whole.
We saw all of this happen before with the combine harvester replacing farm workers. It took the massive culling of population from two world wars, several genocides, a massive flu pandemic, and we still had to ration jobs among the remaining workers (aka the 40 hour workweek). We're at the point Keynes predicted where we could be working 15 hour workweeks, but we're not. Instead we're inventing bullshit jobs (See Graeber's book) to justify ourselves according to an agrarian work or starve paradigm.
UBI compensates workers for being replaced by machines, denied the ability to work the land as sustenance farmers, and stimulates the economy (demand side as opposed to Reganomics supply-side tried in the past) all at the same time.
What unintended side effects could come with a basic income?
Top-down control. We see this already with existing welfare programs where they are designed to keep people in poverty rather than give them a chance to get back on their feet. So long as they're in poverty, they're easily controlled to keep voting in the name of welfare programs, despite these very programs designed to trap them there.
Other potential problems may exist depending on the implementation. I personally do not support any UBI for kids. A UBI for adults should be enough to support kids already and whether to have them should be a choice. A partial UBI for kids would encourage population growth, which is not a desired effect.
What problems does a basic income NOT solve?
Social work. Some people need additional services beyond financial assistance to get back on their feet and be a part of society.
What threatens a successful basic income program?
Cronyism, like anything. It could end up being too little (see welfare, above). It could be implemented in a way that betrays the goals (not universal). It can be skimmed and milked, like the EBT contract that gives the banks a portion of all EBT funds.
Is the concept of a basic income perfect?
The concept, sure. It's a simple method of solving modern economic problems in a way that anyone can understand. It rewards personal responsibility in managing finances, it reduces chances for graft, it's very egalitarian, and it stimulates the economy in ways that QE has failed. It also requires relatively little in the way of change as we're not talking about a full blown communist revolution. It's very much a product of its times and it may not be the best solution 50 years from now, but it's a great solution for today. Whether it can be enacted without a bunch of caveats and special rules and pork is another matter, but the concept is rock solid.
5
The concept is less than perfect, as presented by the subject advocate, as single state welfare scheme
The schemes retain the inequitable process of money creation which is the source of global inequality
The concept approaches perfection as our equal inclusion the process and profit of money creation, as that provides structural inclusion as an equal financier of our global socioeconomic system, the BI provided is globally consistent, and the only cost is the sustainable interest we pay to maintain our money supply
1
Money isn't wealth. Money creation is a form of wealth extraction that works so long as people agree to continue utilizing that currency. This is why cryptocurrency is so dangerous. It provides a secure means of exchange, if only enough people adopt it.
2
People don’t agree to use currencies, it’s mandated by law
That’s the part that makes it slavery
‘It works’ meaning someone is making money from it, by force of law, for my cooperation, and it isn’t me
Secure means of exchange is important, but how much more secure, at what cost?
Cryptocurrencies also provide profit for some as long as people use them, some even beginning to pay folks for using them, but until all RW currencies are created in a standard ethical and inclusive process, we can’t have a stable economy, and Wealth will continue to accumulate to the wealthy
I suspect a cryptocurrency may be created based on an inclusive model, not by me, but I have described just such a simple structure
We do need smart social contracts... I won’t be doing that either
1
I'm special because I have a blog on medium.com
3
I’m special in spite
2
No only that, but one of my posts got over 21,000 claps. Get on my level, bitch.
0
Can’t have a valid discussion about an undefined program, there’s little to verify or disprove any claim
The premise isn’t valid either, because these advocates don’t advocate for UBI, they advocate for some compromise, some welfare scheme that excludes most of the people on the planet, including only citizens of countries wealthy enough to afford them
Even the BIEN definition still includes each of us, in spite of efforts to change that, so no single state welfare scheme is UBI (& I was a member before Scott, should have been listed as BIENefactor, but they don’t like me, I guess)
The problem addressed by including each human equally in the process and profit of money creation is slavery, replaced with individual sovereignty
Money created by any means is a claim for any human labor or product of labor available, that’s just what it is, an IOU we are each obligated to accept in exchange
Kings paid for things with money, asserting ownership of all things in his domain, that must be surrendered for the notes to make good on the sovereign debt
State doesn’t own us though, so it can’t ethically license money creation to banks either
The only ethical process of money creation is to borrow money into existence from each of us humans, collectively, like through our individual sovereign trust accounts, with the interest paid directly to each of us, individually
Until money creation is ethical, inclusive, stable, and sustainable, the foundation of our global socioeconomic system will be unstable, it’s designed that way, designed to acquire ownership of the planet by Wealth
So, your time is best spent trying to rationalize how welfare and State ownership of our labor is better than self ownership and individual sovereignty, when the latter will finance the social contracts you demand, globally?
That’s your call, of course, and likely correct from a personal success perspective, but not so much for humanity, and all those benefits that won’t be realised from single state welfare schemes in wealthy countries
Thanks so much again, for your kind indulgence
2
Don't take my silence as not having read your posts, they are noted and registered :)
I have a lot to write about labor, I define most modern labor as worthless. If there was intrinsic value in writing code, I should be able to easily build my own business writing code, right? Not quite. Employers offer A LOT that we take for granted, but when told to figure it out, we can't/won't. Extremely condensed conclusion, don't quote me on this right here, but I will gladly expand.
1
Thanks
Defining any labor as useless may be hasty
...even if by doing it one only realizes the absurdity, and stops, there is value
Bad examples also have worth
If the cultural angst reaches a sufficient level, perhaps accepting each other as equal participants in our journey, in exchange for economic abundance, will come into favor
Then it will have been worth that any way
What employers offer can be provided by other humans working in cooperation, but I certainly see the point... I never had enough interest in money, I suppose, to get other people to do things...
another aspect is government (the public) as employer
The lack of sustainably priced money is the primary impediment to robust and productive public spending/investment
Very few people comment, still waiting for valid argument against
(I’m pretty sure the only one is racist)
2
In the response you quoted, I believe the main argument was:
they want to destroy a country because of what they say someone WILL do
In other words, basic income will destroy the country because of false fears of automation.
My line of attack is to point out that the private sector does this too: in 2008, banks stopped lending because they were afraid of what people would do. But their fears were unjustified. Not as many people defaulted as was predicted by panicky traders.
Since the private sector periodically is willing to destroy the country based on panicky predictions of what people WILL do, we should not rely on the private sector. We should print money for a basic income, and use public policy to encourage people to learn how to self-provision without need for markets.
That is what I would say to that commentor that you quoted.
1
Won't teaching people to self-provision work without the need for an overbearing government that hands them out money? It already does.
1
Okay, so here's my problem with you and why I choose not to spend the time answering your questions.
If you read what I have spent thousands of hours writing, you wouldn't be asking the questions you're asking. In fact, your first question is the question I find most telling of just how much reading you've done, not only of my work, but at all.
What problem does basic income solve?
Honestly, how can you ask that question and claim you've read so much about UBI and just can't seem to find the answer?
My pinned tweet on Twitter alone is an entire thread about the evidence behind UBI, and points to all the ways things could be systemically better under UBI. From improved health outcomes, to improved educational outcomes, to reduced crime, to more personal freedom, better functioning markets, heightened intrinsic motivation, more entrepreneurship, stronger economies, the list of reasons is just huge.
You are asking me to write an entire article just for you, despite having already written so much for everyone.
I have an entire FAQ where I have so many questions listed that I am commonly asked, where each question links to something that answers that question in depth. I do that to help people do their own research, but I also do it to save my own time.
You do not own my time. My time is mine. I choose to spend it in ways I feel maximize my impact. Everything you are asking I have already written about. So have others. Why should you get special consideration?
I have spent innumerable hours absorbing everything I can about UBI, and everything related to it. I have done that on my own. I seek out everything I can. If I have a question, I look to answer it by seeking different viewpoints and perspectives and then coming to a conclusion using my critical thinking skills. Why aren't you doing that?
Do you think I have ever written over and over again to those like Standing and Parijs, those who have been at this for decades and demanding that they answer my questions? No. If I have a question, I do my own research.
Do your research. I've already tried to help by doing my own research and trying to simplify academic papers into more readable blogs and articles and slide decks. I've already done what I can to then organize those into a FAQ to make it even easier.
I've even made entire presentations meant to cover every question you ask. They are publicly available. Here's one that if you went through, you shouldn't be asking those questions anymore.
https://prezi.com/9bqg8rdqw0da/unconditional-basic-income/
What does UBI solve? Jesus Christ, I seriously don't even know how you can honestly ask that if you've done the reading you claim to have done. You therefore come off as a troll. I make a point of not feeding trolls. You simply don't seem honest to me. You seem like someone who just wants to argue.
Populism is on the rise around the world. That's a huge problem, not because there's anything wrong with populism itself, but because of those who take advantage of it. I think if people had UBI it would be far more difficult to take advantage of people, to play on their fears. UBI would strengthen democracy itself. I have written about this too. Have you read it or not read it?
https://medium.com/basic-income/what-we-need-to-truly-thrive-democracy-and-unconditional-basic-income-ccdbe72cefa5
I simply do not believe you when you say you have read so much and can't find the answers. All the answers are out there. There are certainly still questions to ask. There will always be more to learn and answers to determine. But you aren't doing that. You are asking me to do your research for you, despite already having literally spent years trying to do just that, to make it easier for you to find those answers.
Have you heard the term, you can lead a horse to water but you can't make him drink it? I have done so much work to lead you to the water. You are not drinking it, and seem to be complaining that you just can't seem to find any water. That to me is very frustrating and puts me in a position of deciding what my best course of action is.
In your case, I have decided to not bother. You are either a troll who is being dishonest, or you are someone who is lazy and wants others to do all their research for them, or you are someone who just can't really comprehend this stuff.
Considering those three choices, I'd rather spend the hours of my life doing other things than giving those hours of my life as a gift to you.
Pwned.
Except he just wrote a shit ton of stuff
Good to hear something from you and thank you for the honesty. Please read the following carefully, and please don’t make quick judgements based on superficial reactions(again):
You seem to have mistaken my tact for naïveté. Those questions can’t be taken at face value. They’re meant to be a discussion starter without either of us losing face, I know which questions they will lead to, and I know which of those questions we will disagree on, this is where the true discussion that I’d like to have starts, and it’s a discussion few are willing to have--perhaps even you--that’s OK, just let me know.
I’ve had similar discussions with others, but when they aren’t able to answer something, I don’t blame them, because they’re average joes that work 9-to-5s, not as prolific as you, and definitely not being paid by strangers on the internet that put their faith in you. But then I can’t help but think, have you questioned yourself about those same things, or not?
Most people who disagree with you would write something similar to the screenshot I posted. I agree with some of their points, but I choose a more respectful method hoping you’d reply with similar respect(which you haven’t).
Also, perhaps in the meantime, the answers and ideas on your mind have changed from what you previously wrote, and I’d like to hear that. Do you continuously question yourself and arrive at different answers sometimes? I do, sometimes I agree with the UBI thing, and sometimes I don’t, for different reasons. If I arrive at the same answer many times in a row, I’m doing something wrong and likely forgot to take into account some part of the infinitely complex world we live in.
Maybe I sound like a troll because I’m questioning everything all you write is based on. I question that what people need is money; I question that people aren’t sure what to do with the free time they’re given; and I question how much good this would do. Human nature won't allow this to happen, but there might still be a better way that what we currently do, especially with the rise of automation, etc.
Questioning people is what I do for a living. The people being questioned hate it, but what I help them build becomes rock solid.
I use something to humble myself down when speaking to others, which is to never assume people I disagree with are either idiots and/or trolls, because how convenient for me is it that the person I disagree with is an idiot troll? Very convenient.
I’d understand your defensiveness if you were advocating for a new swing set for your neighbourhood, but Scotty boy, you’re advocating for something that will affect me, my girlfriend, and my future children, so, even though your time is very valuable--just like everyone else’s--you can’t advocate for a global change whilst locking yourself away from opposing global views from people that experienced the world differently than you. And when they come from someone that wants genuine discourse, if anything, I see a good use of your time to give answers to those that completely disagree but aren’t able to have a proper conversation because they’re simply not vocal/articulate/patient enough.
For some perspective on how much thought I give my actions: I wrote that post 4 months ago and waited 4 months to decide if it was worth my time or not.
I’m not trying to catch you off guard and ruin your reputation; I’m not trying to damage your image; I’m not trying to do anything to you; I’m trying to improve our collective future; and your name shows up a lot when I do research about the future.
Would you allow me to question your further if I pay something on your Patreon? Genuine question.
This post, even though it challenges UBI in the UBI subreddit, got nearly 80% upvotes. What does that tell you?
And to be very blunt, given how you react to opposing views(was that 5 ad hominem in a row?) tells me that either:
In the case of a), I’d see your thought process a bit better in your writing, and I don’t.
I personally don’t write publicly the same way I discuss topics behind closed doors. Public writing has to be optimized for understanding of the masses, and complex topics simplified for the attention span of the average joe. Could I read your raw material before it’s condensed for the public?
You could say I’m basically questioning your ability to reason based on my assumptions* from your writing and general way of being, all I want to find out is: is there more to you than what you show, or is this it?
*I want to check if my assumptions are correct(questioning myself), since I never assume the people I interact with are idiots, I assume you either:
**if so, where did you write it? Did you write it? I’ve read your material more than once and it took me about a year, nothing new was found, have you updated your ideas in the meantime?
If you tell me right now that you’re not interested, you won’t hear from me again(directly, that is).
If you can’t handle feedback from someone on reddit, I’m not sure you can handle being involved in what is basically a global system of government.(at least not a functional global system of government).
I'm not saying UBI is communism/yadda yadda, I assure you my questions are much deeper and sophisticated than that.
This was a much less tactful way of putting my point of view, and to save you time: answer with either your skype handle as a private message, or simply reply “no”. The time it took you to write those longer replies would have been enough to start a very solid discussion with spoken words.
I'm talking to you with my real name, you could find out all sorts of things about me with that including my employer and where I went for skiing last Christmas. I hope that's enough to show you I'm not trolling.
Here's some blunt honesty for you,
You don't come off as sincere. Your questions seem to be looking for problems where they aren't very many. So you'd rather create a problem.
You seem to care more about yourself and getting your own answers than anyone else and their time. There's plenty of studies to go look at and find the answers too.
Your approach wreaks of targeted twisting an arm for argumentation rather than showing actual intent of truly understanding something you may not understand, with the threat of attempting to disparage the confidence of your target if they do not comply with your demands for answers. Your questions focus on problems where, based on study findings, there simply aren't any.
Your writing seems to imply you are fueled by your own ego and unaware of that fact. You're asking an advocate if there is anything that threatens a UBI program? Maybe you should look in the mirror, especially considering your last question on that list.
You actually stoop so low as insults "Scotty Boy", so you are clearly attempting to inflame and cause controversy through belittling. Then you claim you are not trolling. Then you post stuff like this in this very thread.
You speak very highly of yourself and then casually insult him when Scott simply says he doesn't have the time, so you display sociopathic and psychopathic traits- you should probably get that checked up.
He comes across as a deluded fantasist high-schooler. I don't think he's trolling on purpose, he just has a very over-inflated sense of self importance. Nobody who is truly interested in this topic would go to such great lengths to attempt to establish credibility.
I'm young and have a lot of surplus energy, kill me why don't you. I'm as important as anyone else, maybe you have a too low sense of self-importance?
I'm interested in this topic because it's a goddamn global change that is completely flawed. I wouldn't take it seriously if it was being ignored, but countries are actually implementing this stuff.
Bro, you have completely misinterpreted me and/or not read what I actually wrote(I literally wrote down my doubts about my own thought process). Does that sound like ego?
This is the most commented on thread in weeks, this tells me there are a lot of things that need to be said but are just being put under the rug.
[deleted]