Before participating, consider taking a glance at [our rules page](/r/CapitalismvSocialism/wiki/rules) if you haven't before.
We don't allow **violent or dehumanizing rhetoric**. The subreddit is for discussing what ideas are best for society, not for telling the other side you think you could beat them in a fight. That doesn't do anything to forward a productive dialogue.
Please report comments that violent our rules, but don't report people just for disagreeing with you or for being wrong about stuff.
Tired of arguing on reddit? Consider [joining us on Discord.](http://discord.com/invite/politicscafe)
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/CapitalismVSocialism) if you have any questions or concerns.*
If you take capitalism in a loose sense (private entities allow to profit from MoP), having social welfare and UBI is not incompatible.
And what does UBI have to do with world hunger or the will to thrive?
That question wasn't by me actually. I have heard this in many stupid discussions. World hunger is more related to socialism of food production and distribution.
I thought UBI was incompatible with capitalism because, capitalism expects some form of employment ROI over the salary income. Giving away a basic income to almost everyone means it's not possible for every firm / company / employer to receive employment from everyone. It's just a null hypothesis.
The right word for that would be socialism basically.
On the contrary, UBI is the only thing that can prolong capitalism. In a world where most production is automated and in the hands of a few owners nobody is gonna have jobs or money to buy what is produced. If those owners want to stay powerful and avoid a revolution the only way for them is to create a UBI.
Owners can't turn a profit if consumers can only buy their products with pocket money provided by the owners themselves. That's exactly the same as capitalists buying the products and handing them out for free.
UBI and welfare in general could and does save capitalism by preventing the emergence of a class of destitute and pissed off workers with no stake in the system whatsoever. Maybe capitalism will evolve into a simulation of capitalism in which obsolete, ultra-alienated humans exist solely to consume. Humans need to get ahead of the curve, if you ask me, and that's certainly not possible under neoliberal capitalism.
> Owners can't turn a profit if consumers can only buy their products with pocket money provided by the owners themselves.
I mean isn't that how it already works lol? Like I work at Amazon they pay me a wage and then I turn around and spend that wage on products from Amazon. It's just that Amazon pockets the difference.
As long as we just keep pretending the whole thing isn't a farce technically it'll work...
Yeah, you *work* at Amazon. The "difference" is the difference between the shit that you produce for Amazon and the shit that Amazon gives you in return.
Automations still need human interventions btw. Where the future is heading is, in the direction of more creativity management which is the only thing that humans would need to manage. Revolution occurs not due to the lack of jobs. It occurs when the independence of the people is taken away. If a person or family became independent of every commodity such as electricity, food production, transport, housing, etc, we actually don't need to earn in the first place. This is where we're heading into the future. Complete independence. UBI doesn't actually fit into this discussion at all, because by the time independence increases to it's peak, capitalism will cannabilize itself.
Why haven’t any of the thousands of scientific advancements throughout history resulted in mass unemployment? Why are you so sure it’s gonna happen now?
Lots of technological advancements have resulted in significant unemployment in many industries…For example, I grew up in the coalfields of Appalachia, and every time some new equipment was rolled out that could replace human labor, it caused mass layoffs. Some places are hit worse than others because of a lack of economic diversity, but the problem still resulted from business owners recognizing that they could profit more by investing in new technology that replaced workers they would otherwise have to pay.
Jobs were lost in that particular industry. But for the economy as a whole more jobs have been gained than lost from technological advancement. Yes, cars destroyed the horse and buggy industry, but it CREATED whole new industries with jobs that had never existed before. Which is why there is not mass unemployment from when over 90% of the labour force worked in agriculture.
Okay but there’s a huge difference between the invention of the car and the invention of the self-driving car. I do think automation and continued tech advancements will usher in new industries and job opportunities for people, but how that actually affects quality of life for the average person will come down to how the economy is organized, and with the current trend of wealth flowing into fewer and fewer hands while the middle class continues to shrink, I’m skeptical of our current system.
>Why haven’t any of the thousands of scientific advancements throughout history resulted in mass unemployment?
Why would they have? Scientific and technological advancements don't have a uniform impact on society. It certainly has resulted in unemployment in different sectors of the economy at different points in time, but not necessarily to an extent that it outpaced job growth elsewhere.
>Why are you so sure it’s gonna happen now?
IMO it's because we're seeing an increase in advancements that directly impact the need for labor to do a thing, instead of impacting the output of doing that thing. The former isn't necessarily a bad thing, but it just depends on the task at hand.
The machine learning algorithms I develop, for example, are used to flag fraudulent college applications and regardless of how it's done, there's an upper bound on how many applications can be flagged. It benefits the employees vetting applications to use my algorithm in its current state because it cuts out 90% of the applications and allows them to get through all the applications before financial aid is disbursed. Here's the rub: since they're now able to handle all of the apps that they need to process, improvements to my algorithm no longer improve productivity, they just reduce the need for productivity in the first place. If my algorithm ends up being accurate enough, they'd only need to employ someone to generate data for me to update the model with, and if I were able to set the model up to effectively retrain itself, they wouldn't need to employ anyone and wouldn't need to pay me to do anything unless the infrastructure needed maintenance.
It's not like things like this didn't happen in the past, but it wasn't feasible to automate this kind of work until the last decade or so, and I can do from the comfort of my own basement.
Because they weren’t AI. AI has the potential to make humans obsolete within a few decades.
Join that together with advancements in robotics and hiring a human will only be profitable in very specific scenarios.
We should welcome this with open arms, share the spoils and just lay back - but we can’t because an infinitesimally small amount of people just need to own all of it.
If you think capitalism has at some point brought humanity into richer conditions, then would it be logical to think at some time in the future a new method of organizing wealth will someday replace capitalism.
Sure, but this is not to say it will be socialism or even that I will happen in our lifetimes. I highly doubt people living in feudalism accurately predicted the economic trajectory they were headed in.
If that method in the future does come about then great. I would be all for it. In fact would love to see it. But so far we have yet to see such a thing.
GNOMEchompsky_64: This post was hidden because of how new your account is.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/CapitalismVSocialism) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Not only is UBI compatible with capitalism, it may end up being necessary as a way to address mass unemployment due to automation.
UBI is a beefed up unemployment check basically. Enough so that you won't starve if you lose your job, and maybe enough rent a Room so you aren't homeless. It's supposed to keep people alive and consuming when they don't have a job, or even If they do
But capitalism expects employment and ROI from the benefitor. If UBI is granted to everyone whether they contribute or not, wouldn't that be socialism ?
The question isn't in the sentence, but in the meaning of the words.
No because the means of production would still be at the hands of the bourgeoisie and they would still be exploiting surplus value from workers to profit. The difference would only be a reduction of the workforce and UBI as a way to stimulate consumerism - after all capitalism only works when there are people to buy the products - and avoid riots or even revolution brought by mass destitution
It's like with Bretton Woods. The US and western Europe were scared shitless of the USSR's recent popularity for having won the war against nazism and its rapidly growing economy. They knew that a destroyed Europe with pre war wages and little labor rights could find socialism quite seductive. So they made sure to give workers a lot of welfare so as to prevent revolts. But once the 80s rolled around and then the USSR fell, well ..Those protections were slowly stripped back
So you mean the crony capitalists are already in the surplus profit margin and due returning their wealth back ? But are they doing it ? Will they ? Do you really think that'll happen ?
They will give some scraps when they feel threatened, yes, like the ruling classes always do. They'll still keep most of the wealth to themselves though
Musk has publicly advocated for UBI and there are some American billionaires who defend that they should pay more taxes. These are a minority, but a minority that understands that the current economic situation is insustainable and that Someday the chickens Will come home to roost
Dude even if any goverment imposes 50% IT on the super rich, it still won't be enough to execute UBI on the poor whose population is quite high. And if there's any government who's ready to impose 90% tax and do communist things like these, the rich will probably get brain drained and get the fuck of their country. It's a cat n mouse situation which we can never solve.
I never said UBI would be used to erradicate poverty. It's the bare minimum for someone to survive on and that money mostly goes back to the capitalists anyway
Poverty's definition actually changes in every country btw. If survival is the goal, then the stuff government need to do are free education, food subsidies, residential guarantees and employment improvements. Socialism is the only way we can lift people from poverty. Giving away a basic income to everyone would render useless because an uneducated unemployed poor has no proper idea on how to lift themselves with the money you provide. Most of them will just spend it on leisures.
The rich can get out of the country, but their Land, industries, machinery, etc. can't. And that's all we need, really
The rich won't be missed, like they weren't in the USSR
The rich can get out of the country, but their Land, industries, machinery, etc. can't. And that's all we need, really
The rich won't be missed, like they weren't in the USSR
A livable UBI coupled with universal healthcare, universal zero-tuition education, and universal rent control is the only way to make capitalism *moral*
> there are still a lot of challenges and burdens that hammer us such as transport, storage, distribution, etc. All of these difficulties also require strength and will for us to work upon.
Listen to yourself.
"Logistics is hard, so we need to trust the benevolent leaders to get us the resources we need to survive, because they're rich they *must* know how to treat us well, yes I will go down Mr Bezos gobble slurp"
> Let's say even if we overcame the world hunger. How would that help us when the will to live and thrive for the livelihood is at it's ultimate low ?
If we eliminated world hunger the will to live and thrive would be at an *all time high*. The single biggest source of depression is the knowledge that the wage slave is trapped in the wage cage.
>universal rent control
"In many cases rent control appears to be the most efficient technique presently known to destroy a city—except for bombing."
~ Assar Lindbeck.
Rent control doesn't work. It reduces access to housing rather than increasing it. Only economically illiterate folks support it.
That's why the solution is to build more housing.
Rent control simply shifts the problem and makes it worse: instead of a rent increase, you simply can't find housing and end up homeless. The overall quantity of housing is decreased.
There are more empty houses than homeless people in the US. Homelessness is not caused by a shortage of housing, at least in the global north. It's caused in the concentration of the housing in the land of speculative landowners
>There are more empty houses than homeless people in the US.
[Badeconomics has disproved this myth](https://www.reddit.com/r/badeconomics/s/F1pua0MjaB)
Most "empty homes" are either in the process of getting sold, or beat-up sheds in the middle of nowhere.
Not to mention that homeless people aren't the only demand for homes. Anyone who lives far from their workplace, who lives with their parents, or who pays too much in rent, would benefit from building more homes.
The issue is a shortage of housing, in the global north as well.
This is only true for a few cities. Very few cities have less then 10 empty housing units per 1 homeless person. So if 50% are in the process of being sold/moved into, and lets say 45% is unlivable we can still easily house half the homeless.
Yes part of the problem is shortages in areas where people want to actually move, but to blame all housing inflation solely on that is delusional.
>Very few cities have less then 10 empty housing units per 1 homeless person.
This is such a false statement. Name one city that has over 10 empty housing units per homeless person, I'll wait.
Most "empty housing" is not in the cities. It's in rural dead villages.
Thanks for waiting
Just one?
Orlando, FL
~2,007 homeless
~124,182 vacant units
~62 vacant units per homeless
New Orleans, LA
~1,314 homeless
~73,368 vacant units
~56 vacant unit per homeless
Atlanta, GA
~3,240 homeless
~178,655 vacant units
~55 vacant units per homeless
Houston, TX
~3,974 homeless
~159,470 vacant units
~ 40 vacant units per homeless
Do you want me to keep going? Because if so out of the largest 100 cities in the USA only about 15 are below 10 vacant per homeless so it would be quicker to list those instead.
Numbers are from 2023
Departments of Housing and Urban Development for homeless population
U.S. Census's American Community Survey for vacant housing units.
More empty houses than homeless people is the IDEAL scenario. Would you rather more homeless people than vacant houses? Even ignoring the fact that cities with the most housing vacancies tend to have the least amount of homeless, there a multiple reasons why a house may be considered vacant. Most vacancies (>50%) are houses that are in between buyer and seller, one family moved out and another is moving in in a couple of weeks or so, this is clearly not the case where we could just throw a homeless person in there and call it a day. Many more homes are vacant because they are needing repairs or renovation. Here again, throwing a homeless person into a house that is actively being renovated is not a very eloquent solution.
[https://www.reddit.com/r/badeconomics/comments/12yrk07/stop_comparing_the_number_of_vacant_homes_to_the/?rdt=58588](https://www.reddit.com/r/badeconomics/comments/12yrk07/stop_comparing_the_number_of_vacant_homes_to_the/?rdt=58588)
Of course no homeless would be the ideal. Who would disagree with that? It may not be impossible but it’s certainly pretty damn hard. No country has yet to completely eradicate homelessness. It remains to be seen if this can be accomplished. Until humans somehow erase their proclivity for war, homelessness will inevitably follow. But one thing is for sure, the country with the current lowest rate of homelessness in the world is the very much capitalist country of [Japan](https://www.developmentaid.org/amp/news-stream/post/157797/homelessness-statistics-in-the-world).
Plenty of socialist countries and a couple nordic countries have eliminated homelessness
The thing is, If everyone has a home, how will speculators make money off artificial scarcity?
Did you even look at the source? The Nordic have very low homelessness they have not eradicated it completely. Which socialist countries and what data are you using to come to that conclusion?
But there are not empty houses in the neighborhood places where people are homeless.
Rent Control is not necessary when supply exceeds demand, and in the case where demand exceeds supply rent control makes the situation permanent.
That doesn’t seem to the case, at least in the U.S. Housing affordability (which is heavily affected by supply) is definitely a significant cause of homelessness right now
The problem with this argument is that most homes designated “vacant” are either not suitable for housing or aren’t truly vacant. Homes that just saw someone move out, homes going through renovations, and seasonal and vacation homes are large parts of this statistic. Not to mention the vacant homes that are just not suitable for human habitation. In reality increasing housing supply (and thereby decreasing housing costs) is a much more effective solution to (at least a lot of) homelessness in the U.S.
>Not to mention the vacant homes that are just not suitable for human habitation.
Yes, there are videos on Youtube which show someone driving through small towns in some areas of the USA which are semi-ghost towns where the population has declined very significantly over the past few decades. Kind of depressing to see. These towns have plenty of vacant homes, which are barely or not habitable. But even if they were habitable, its completely infeasible for homeless people to live there - what would they do living there? These small towns can hardly provide the kind of services that homeless people might find in large cities.
Dishonest article. Their own source points put the majority of vacancy is either homes that people only live in part of the year or growth. Or homes that are being built.
Most others point out also that many homes are in transition from being rented from one Tennant to another. Houses usually don't just sit there costing people money.
Yeah because some people owning many houses and leaving them empty for speculation while others are homeless is definitely a great thing
Having to spend most of your money every money in order to get a roof under your head is such a great system that works well for everybody
> A livable UBI coupled with universal healthcare, universal zero-tuition education, and universal rent control is the only way to make capitalism *moral*
Let me see if I understand this correctly.
A group of politicians, aided by a giant bureaucracy, confiscate at least 50% of your income, and then give you back what they think you should get in the form of cash and benefits. They also keep a big chunk of the money for themselves, which covers their lavish salaries, benefits, and gold-plated pensions. They basically manage your life, similar to a way a parent raises a child, except instead of love there is usually contempt.
This arrangement is what you consider to be moral, correct?
>A group of politicians, aided by a giant bureaucracy, confiscate at least 50% of your income, and then give you back what they think you should get in the form of cash and benefits.
If UBI means that everybody can live comfortably, then there's no problem with being taxed on your income. I consider lifting millions out of poverty to be more morally imperative than removing wealth from politicians, even if I would also prefer politicians not to live lavishly by exploiting their position. That is a separate problem.
Anywhere there is income tax, salaries are decided with taxation baked in. Employers try their best to pay as little as they can get away with, and if there were no tax on income, your salary would be lower accordingly. Income tax isn't money that is being confiscated from you, because your gross salary wouldn't be as high if it weren't imposed.
>If UBI means that everybody can live comfortably, then there's no problem with being taxed on your income.
How much money per person per year are we talking about?
>Anywhere there is income tax, salaries are decided with taxation baked in.
No. Consider a job that pays 50k per year. A single mother of three doing that job would pay much less than a single man with no kids doing the same job. The employer doesn't give a shit about their income taxes either way.
>Employers try their best to pay as little as they can get away with,
Yes, and prospective employees try to get as much pay as they can get away with.
>How much money per person per year are we talking about?
There's many ways to go about it, especially taking into account a fully realised welfare system including e.g. child benefit in addition. For argument's sake, let's say enough to ensure someone earning minimum wage, unemployment benefit or disability allowance etc. is able to eat, afford rent and live comfortably, but not enough that somebody can simply choose not to work for no good reason.
>No. Consider a job that pays 50k per year. A single mother of three doing that job would pay much less than a single man with no kids doing the same job. The employer doesn't give a shit about their income taxes either way.
That doesn't change the fact that your gross salary would end up smaller if there was no tax to be paid on it. The base rate of income tax is definitely accounted for when determining competitive salary offers, it's baked in to a prospective employee's expectations based on the job market, and their requirements based on living costs. Tax relief is a separate issue.
I feel like implementing UBI, universal healthcare, rent control and tuition is quite literally handing over all resources to our benevolent leaders and entrusting them to get us the resources we need to survive.
Real democracy means you have control over the leaders. The reason you have a separation between the leaders and us is because you feel we don't reslly control them, which is true. Our democracy is. Stronger democracy would solve this.
The people actually ruling and in control of the government.
In such a situation those leaders who aren’t benevolent can be replaced and the harm they do mitigated.
But we won’t be voting on each allocative decision for all the resources that we have just handed over to the politicians. So in effect, we ARE entrusting them to give us the resources we need when we need them.
Maybe, but bureaucracies tend to do just fine given good direction, and it’s the direction that the people need to control.
You act like everyone voted into office is an absolute dictator, and that’s not the case in a healthy democracy.
Again, bureaucracies are usually a couple steps removed from the democratic process. But it seems like you agree that you are indeed entrusting them with our vital resources.
I’m not saying they are cruel dictators, simply that they have no way of knowing what I need when I need it better than I do.
You’re dead wrong. Do you know how many people work made-up bullshit jobs that shouldn’t exist, and actually harm the economy, all because these people have to work to live? Middlemen, advertisers, gamblers etc. There are millions of them in the USA alone.
A very small percentage of workers even work in food production anymore.
I could go on for paragraphs, but my point is this: a baseline standard of living without doing any work is okay. Human life should have dignity regardless. For the jobs that need doing, make sure the wages are high, and people will gladly go to work to afford a better lifestyle for themselves and their families even if their needs are already met.
Ubi is just a band aid friedman came up with to address a failure of capitalism.
Its still flawed because capitalism is .
That and social welfare are bandaid s that prevent starvation and revolution.
And when a welfare state is done properly it promotes social mobility instead of the dependence neoliberal conservative welfare produces .
UBI is how we will all die by starving to death but being "rich" and not understanding how this could have happened.
UBI doesn't create food, wealth, or clothing. It takes the things that already exist within the economy and spreads them around. But it destroys the incentives to create those things. If your country implements a UBI, **run and don't look back**.
Those who would rather procrastinate, given the opportunity to procrastinate for an indefinite amount of time, would discover very quickly that humans are not biologically programmed for indefinite procrastination.
How do you know?
Seems like "Would" and "could" are the operating words here. Conditional and hypothetical if anything.
>because those are small minority
In theory, perhaps.
I’m sure you could, and I’m sure a UBI would assist in your financial stability if you decide to reduce your hours or quit altogether so you can put your time to good use. After all, most of us have got about 14 hours up our sleeves to keep ourselves fed, hydrated and physically and mentally stimulated before we need to go to sleep again, nobody wants to be bored for 9 of those hours just so we can eat.
>or quit altogether so you can put your time to good use.
Great, I look forward to being paid to sit home. How much will each person receive each year?
The point is, in addition to the non-monetary rewarded work like open source software, much much more work are required than what you would do without monetary compensation.
We’re not talking about monetary compensation though, we’re talking about monetary incentive. People are less incentivised to work a job that pays minimum than they are to work a job that pays enough to pay off a house loan without heavy sacrifices. But minimum wage jobs *typically* provide adequate compensation for the work required.
In spite of that, I swear that there are far more people out there who are most happy working a job they like for shit money than they would be working a job that pays really well, while the nature of the work is demoralising. Monetary incentive as a rule can’t be assumed in the case of the former.
How is minimum wage jobs provide adequate compensation for all the jobs that is required?
Regardless of economic system there are unpleasant jobs that need to be done. You are also saying a tautology, if you like the job of cause you would be happy, but then how much the job is paying also influences if you like the job or not
I say *typically* as to imply that minimum wage should be adequate compensation because the minimum wage is supposed to be in line with living costs and inflation, but our standard of living often makes it look like it’s not enough in our heads and almost as often, that legitimately is the case.
But of course, this only really applies to low-skill workers in ideal working conditions, while high risk workers should be compensated more due to working conditions being more hazardous to their health. And specialists in specific industries may require more compensation for application of their knowledge or skills in a setting where failing a task is not an option. Examples like these deserve to be paid more to match their output.
At no point did I ever imply that pay influences how much or how little you like a job. In fact, I think the moment you start telling yourself to stick with your job because of the money is the moment you should consider resigning and finding something else. I may only be speaking for myself, but I believe that the only thing that influences whether or not you like a job is the factors of the job itself, the work environment, the processes, the clients, the peers and the boss.
I’m working a volunteer shift at a car festival this weekend, I’m assisting with the drift car rides. I’m an automotive enthusiast and I have a car that I’m in the process of building. After I’m done in the morning, I get to wander around and see the rest of the festival and talk to all the people at the trade stands.
Am I working for free?
If it was a real job, they wouldn't let you wander around all afternoon.
Also, you're describing a hobby. Most jobs in real life aren't hobbies.
I also volunteer in my free time, but I wouldn't volunteer for my job, and certainly not put in the same amount of effort and hours if it was free.
Well, this is gonna boggle your mind, I used to do the build for this same festival as a 9-10 day contract, got paid about $400aud per day. It’s not exactly my hobby at that point, is it. Not by your definition it seems.
And yeah, during the festival days on the weekend, they DID let me wander around while on the clock. Go figure.
Again, most jobs in real life aren't hobbies.
You're not gonna find enough people who love filling shelves enough to wake up at 7am every morning for free.
The idea that everyone would be willing to work for free is such a laughable one that idk why leftists are willing to die on this hill.
I would wager you would find more volunteers to stack shelves at a mum and dad small town grocer than you would a corporate supermarket. I would also wager that on a long enough timeline, corporate supermarkets won’t need shelf stackers, they’ll have figured out how to automate the process.
>UBI doesn't create food, wealth, or clothing. It takes the things that already exist within the economy and spreads them around. But it destroys the incentives to create those things. If your country implements a UBI, **run and don't look back**.
I dont support UBI personally, but do you have any empirical evidence to support your claim in practise, multiple independent cases of a UBI actually, directly and severely reducing production of food, wealth and clothing.
Not having UBI or some basic floor basically means you think the only incentive that drives most people to do anything is starving or homelessness. I have a little bit more faith in my fellow human than that. Almost everyone wants more than just a basic small roof over their head and rice and beans. They want to travel and spend on experiences if nothing else.
The thing is with humans, is that everything is relative. When you set a baseline standard of living, then people will only want more.
And that’s a good thing. We should always strive for more and better. But not at the cost of the opportunities of others, and not at the cost of future opportunities.
On the contrary, you can make the same argument for massive executive compensations and extreme ownership rights. They get used to it, feel like it's completely justified, regardless of how much value is stripped from the labor they own, and want more directly at the cost of others. That is literally capitalism. Passively earning even a billion dollars a year without lifting a finger is just "not enough."
While true broadly. This phenomenon does not negate the need for the baseline of a decent life to be met. Decent being a nutritional diet, medicine, housing, and education at least. Working people on the lower end spent most, if not all, if not just all even more than they can on just these base things while for super high income/asset holding individuals these baseline expenses only make up a tiny fraction of the "income" (whether from assets or compensation)
It's not incompatible, but it isn't a great solution when the issue is a lack of supply of goods and services.
Without addressing the supply all you'll get is more high velocity currency units chasing the same goods and services. Inflationary.
The 2% number is somewhat arbitrary. It's low enough to not be felt by the average citizen, has a known track record, and provides a small incentive to spend, invest, keep capital flowing. An inflationary system which relies on debt, such as ours, needs to be in constant growth. When growth stops, people default, and the house of cards comes tumbling down.
UBI is high velocity money. Not the same making credit more available via rate manipulation, for example. UBI is currency in the hands of those who will spend them on core goods and services. That would immediately cause inflation in those needed goods, if it isn't met by an equivalent increase in their supply.
At the end of the day we don't care about having more paper nor ephemeral digits in a bank account. We care about having access to food, water, housing, energy, entertainment, etc. That's what we need more of.
>but it isn't a great solution when the issue is a lack of supply of goods and services.
Ok. But how are we doing on supply issues? Last I checked, at least for food, clothing, and shelter, supplies are sufficient, and its distribution that is an issue more than anything else.
While I do agree that UBI isnt a great solution, I wouldn't say that supply shortfall is the reason why.
>at least for food, clothing, and shelter, supplies are sufficient
Lol.
Food and clothing, maybe. But shelter absolutely not.
There are more households (more people, smaller households) who want larger homes than before. And because of various regulations, we're not building much housing.
> There are more households (more people, smaller households) who want larger homes than before.
Sure. But at the same time, 10% of the USA's housing stock is vacant.
[**Source**](https://usafacts.org/articles/how-many-vacant-homes-are-there-in-the-us/)
Also an issue [**in the UK**](https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/housing/bulletins/numberofvacantandsecondhomesenglandandwales/census2021)
That figure was [**15.8% for the EU at the time the report was written**](https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/statistics-explained/index.php?title=Archive:People_in_the_EU_-_statistics_on_housing_conditions#Housing_characteristics:_unoccupied_dwellings).
My point with all of this is that when you have unoccupied houses, plus a housing shortage, plus some level of homelessness, plus housing not being built, what you've got is a distribution issue. Not a supply issue, per se.
>Sure. But at the same time, 10% of the USA's housing stock is vacant.
That's a myth [which has been debunked on badeconomics](https://www.reddit.com/r/badeconomics/s/F1pua0MjaB)
Most "empty housing" are just in the process of being sold, or are beat-up sheds in the middle of nowhere.
These are not houses that can be easily distributed. It's thus a supply issue, not a distribution issue.
Distribution is important, as it affects local supply. We as a country, in the US, have traditionally done alright. Not amazing, but better than most.
Many other countries haven't fared so well, and so have struggled for long with lack of availability of the things they need and want.
Wealth is a direct measure of the availability to the supply of goods and services we need and want.
AI & robotics promise to increase the supply of anything they're able to disrupt, and so there should be a concerted effort by governments to employ whatever means available to do so.
At the very least, if we wish this to be undertaken by the private sector, there should be an effort to incentivize supply increasing measures such as higher levels of competition , etc.
With rising automation, however, the private sector should diminish along with the decrease in value in human labor. What we replace the current economic system with I don't fully know, but surely none of the ones we know of today.
Btw, I believe UBI will mostly become a thing in the global north and among some of the more developed nations of the global south. Can't see how It possibly could be implemented in Africa in the near future
While I sympathize with the goals of a UBI, in capitalism, when there is a subsidy. Companies just find a way to reduce wages to compensate. You'd have to have a higher and strictly enforced minimum wage, super strong labor protections, and some way to stop them from also firing people to compensate for those things. Basically, they want their margins and are absolutely unwilling to cede ground. I kind of agree that it might be the only way capitalism can even continue unless there was massive labor gains and unionization in rapid fashion.
Walmart and other low wage payers are currently doing what I said right now with food stamps and paying those savings directly to shareholders through dividends and buybacks. The amount of money they've spent on those shareholder returns is just about the exact amount of the average food stamp benefit of their employee base. That's not a coincidence.
If you give everybody a universal basic income there is no incentive to earn a universal basic income. It would just create the incentive to get ahead by demanding a higher universal basic income.
Capitalist here,
I'd retort 2 things.
1. Although I personally don't support UBI, I'm aware that prominent Capitalist tuinkers did favor it. Milton Friedman, comes to mind, if I'm not mistaken. And if OP wants to challenge Friedman l's ideas, it'd probably take more rigor than just saying "all of these (vaguely defined) difficulties require strength and will"
2. Nothing in OP's text actually refers to capitalist theory or market theory anywhere. If OP claims that UBI isn't compatible with capitalism, it'd probably make sense for OP to actually refer to capitalist theory somewhere.
UBI can be compatible with capitalism.
This comes from a Yang supporter of the 2020 DNC race.
That is just a farce claim. UBI could in theory make a country less stable, increase inflation, and even increase food insecurity (e.g., famine). So how you do it. How you pay for it. How you introduce it and the important of when (at least currently here in the USA) are very important considerations.
Having said that. I do think with a strong economy like the USA without a risk of hyper inflation like right now there are arguments for UBI. I think they are pretty strong arguments but they are not slam dunk arguments. Every economic decision comes with costs. UBI will have a level of free rider problem. The good method of UBI is everyone is equally treated with it and because of the free-rider problem you shouldn’t make UBI disbursement checks enough for any comfortability. I think Yang’s $1,000 a month in 2020 was right on target and I think his overall arguments are pretty sound.
Lastly, being a research person I cannot say the research is a net positive. Alaska seems to be positive but I don’t recall reading up on that. The research articles I had read back then were mixed.
I say we implement an across the board 20% UBI specific VAT in the US, so that those making $10-25/hr help, along w the super rich, pay the UBI of those who choose not to work, and simply spend all day gaming or sleeping.
I think most people want “ the other guy” to
pay for this UBI, not themselves. Rich people, corporations, hedge funders, generational wealthers.
Eff that, everybody pays a 20% VAT, and everytime the cash register rings up the tax, it says clearly UBI TAX. We shall see how long nurses will be thrilled to pay for 25 year old men to be sleep late gamers, on the nurses back.
I think world hunger has been influenced today, not only, by climate change but by imperialist policies of America & Europe. Africa, Asia, S & C America have seized peasant land to grow mono crops. The peasant diet, once rich in indigenous staples, is not grown. If we would have let 3rd world countries plant their own crops & helped them with farming techniques, irrigation & fertilizing, they would not be hungry.
UBI is the best solution because it allows anyone to opt out of competition. Not everyone is cut out for competition and nobody should have to work for an employer to survive. Baseline survival should be provided as soon as it’s feasible. From there people can live ascetic lives where they spend very little but own their own precious time to do what they want. And those who want to compete for more money and power can do so as well.
This seems like something to get excited about where everyone wins. I don’t see any downside. Some people argue it will disincentive productive capacity but that’s not the case. Productive capacity is skyrocketing and we no longer need such a high labor force. So it’s unethical to keep people working for survival.
UBI doesn’t need to do that. It’s meant to be more of a local solution. Harmonizing into one global system is not the goal. That said, I think the goal should be that it becomes the norm for humanity, much like other norms have taken off but don’t impact CoL. It could catch on as a norm that countries offer their people but the amount and type would depend on that particular countries economic system and realities. For example, many countries offer health care. That doesn’t mean all countries are offering the same plan, but the general concept of universal healthcare is catching on.
giving people free food would cause more world hunger not less. Right now half the world works 24 seven 365 and only makes $5.50 a day or less. If you gave those people free food they would be much richer than they would be by working and so would never work again.
I mean, world hunger is being solved. Fewer people are malnourished or dieing from hunger than 100 years ago, but this is due to capitalism. Now is UBI incompatible with capitalism... I don't see how it is. Ubi is just redistribution of money. If it's through taxes or not money is always redistributed
Capitalism is the reason for the need. With corporate profits driving the machine and technological advancement (AI, Robotics), jobs become less and less and the masses are still here. If not, Anarchy, not good for capitalism.
“ Even if produce enough food to feed everyone on Earth, there are still a lot of challenges and burdens that hammer us such as transport, storage, distribution, etc”
First off, we already DO produce enough food for to feed everybody on earth. And secondly the thing you said about transport, storage, and distribution is kinda of the point, that despite producing enough food for everyone capitalism doesn’t distribute that food to feed everybody.
I have said a lot of times, that money can’t solve a problem that a lack of money didn’t cause, and as you said, it isn’t money that is causing hunger in numerous parts of the world.
We have politically destabilized states, disfunction states, wars, warlords, etc.
> that money can’t solve a problem that a lack of money didn’t cause
The cause of the problem is not being born an owner of the exclusively owned means of survival and being forced to buy that survival with money.
The lack of money is just a symptom, not a root cause. The root cause is private ownership of common land which is a feature of capitalism.
That simply isn’t the case. It isn’t about money, or any garbage about ownership of anything.
A person under a warlord in Africa, under a tyrant in an authoritarian nation, or in a country ravaged by war isn’t hungry for not having money. Money doesn’t help that person, because money didn’t cause their problem.
What would help them most is a stable and functional government.
Starvation? You are kidding yourself. “Food insecurity” happens, not starvation:
https://impact.economist.com/sustainability/project/food-security-index/
In the USA help is available, and people use that help. Government and state provided food provision systems like SNAP.
True hunger is caused by government instability, not economic system.
No it isn’t, starvation is a different statistic, so trade it very nearly doesn’t exist in the west.
Starvation is when people die moron, when they don’t have enough food.
Food insecurity is a different term with a different meaning. Do some reading on your way to school this morning.
> No it isn’t, starvation is a different statistic, so trade it very nearly doesn’t exist in the west.
Your own fucking link disproves your stance
> Starvation is when people die moron, when they don’t have enough food.
No it is not, you utter imbecile. Starvation is the *process whereby people suffer from not enough food, which if it continues results in death*.
Furthermore, people who die of diseases caused by malnutrition *have starved to death*, even if they still may have had calories.
> Do some reading on your way to school this morning.
Do some growing up
*edit* Hah, instead, /u/TheMikeyMac13 took the pussy-child way out.
Too sensible. This statement will be unintelligible to the target audience. Try to rephrase in class struggle lingo. Yes, ridiculous and irrational but that is who you are trying to persuade.
I'm a marxist, how the hell would you even rephrase this in "class struggle lingo"?
Like, yeah, that made sense, didn't it make enough sense to you to understand that every single fucking person on earth would have understood it?
I can only imagine someone making such a braindead comment if you haven't understood anything communists have been saying, because all you understand is surface level shit that correlates with what you have learned from propaganda pos
The current material conditions necessitate temporarily facilitating bourgeois productive development. Words have different meanings for Marxists. Are you sure you understood?
What, no, that explaination doesn't even make sense here. It's like saying "burr, supply and demand, burr" when someone asks a difficult question about the economy
Like, yeah, you're probably right that that's the driving force behind this, but you have explained nothing
When someone asks a difficult math question and why the answer is π, saying "well, 2+2=4" is a correct statement, but completely inadequate in this situation
>The current material conditions necessitate temporarily facilitating bourgeois productive development.
And that sentence is just wrong most of the time. That's just some Maoist bullshit that never makes sense and is therefore easy to dismantle. It's almost a strawman, as stupid as it is.
Comrade, have you not dialectically reasoned that capitalism is a necessary stage of development and superior to those that preceded it? Conditions are not ripe for proletarian utopia nor for revolution. Foreign aid harms workers and delays the revolution both at home and abroad. The only pathway to lifting the masses out of poverty at this time is the necessary step of capitalism.
Before participating, consider taking a glance at [our rules page](/r/CapitalismvSocialism/wiki/rules) if you haven't before. We don't allow **violent or dehumanizing rhetoric**. The subreddit is for discussing what ideas are best for society, not for telling the other side you think you could beat them in a fight. That doesn't do anything to forward a productive dialogue. Please report comments that violent our rules, but don't report people just for disagreeing with you or for being wrong about stuff. Tired of arguing on reddit? Consider [joining us on Discord.](http://discord.com/invite/politicscafe) *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/CapitalismVSocialism) if you have any questions or concerns.*
If you take capitalism in a loose sense (private entities allow to profit from MoP), having social welfare and UBI is not incompatible. And what does UBI have to do with world hunger or the will to thrive?
That question wasn't by me actually. I have heard this in many stupid discussions. World hunger is more related to socialism of food production and distribution. I thought UBI was incompatible with capitalism because, capitalism expects some form of employment ROI over the salary income. Giving away a basic income to almost everyone means it's not possible for every firm / company / employer to receive employment from everyone. It's just a null hypothesis. The right word for that would be socialism basically.
On the contrary, UBI is the only thing that can prolong capitalism. In a world where most production is automated and in the hands of a few owners nobody is gonna have jobs or money to buy what is produced. If those owners want to stay powerful and avoid a revolution the only way for them is to create a UBI.
Owners can't turn a profit if consumers can only buy their products with pocket money provided by the owners themselves. That's exactly the same as capitalists buying the products and handing them out for free. UBI and welfare in general could and does save capitalism by preventing the emergence of a class of destitute and pissed off workers with no stake in the system whatsoever. Maybe capitalism will evolve into a simulation of capitalism in which obsolete, ultra-alienated humans exist solely to consume. Humans need to get ahead of the curve, if you ask me, and that's certainly not possible under neoliberal capitalism.
> Owners can't turn a profit if consumers can only buy their products with pocket money provided by the owners themselves. I mean isn't that how it already works lol? Like I work at Amazon they pay me a wage and then I turn around and spend that wage on products from Amazon. It's just that Amazon pockets the difference. As long as we just keep pretending the whole thing isn't a farce technically it'll work...
Yeah, you *work* at Amazon. The "difference" is the difference between the shit that you produce for Amazon and the shit that Amazon gives you in return.
Except automation isn’t there and there’s a massive need for trade skills with not enough trade workers.
Automations still need human interventions btw. Where the future is heading is, in the direction of more creativity management which is the only thing that humans would need to manage. Revolution occurs not due to the lack of jobs. It occurs when the independence of the people is taken away. If a person or family became independent of every commodity such as electricity, food production, transport, housing, etc, we actually don't need to earn in the first place. This is where we're heading into the future. Complete independence. UBI doesn't actually fit into this discussion at all, because by the time independence increases to it's peak, capitalism will cannabilize itself.
Why haven’t any of the thousands of scientific advancements throughout history resulted in mass unemployment? Why are you so sure it’s gonna happen now?
Lots of technological advancements have resulted in significant unemployment in many industries…For example, I grew up in the coalfields of Appalachia, and every time some new equipment was rolled out that could replace human labor, it caused mass layoffs. Some places are hit worse than others because of a lack of economic diversity, but the problem still resulted from business owners recognizing that they could profit more by investing in new technology that replaced workers they would otherwise have to pay.
Jobs were lost in that particular industry. But for the economy as a whole more jobs have been gained than lost from technological advancement. Yes, cars destroyed the horse and buggy industry, but it CREATED whole new industries with jobs that had never existed before. Which is why there is not mass unemployment from when over 90% of the labour force worked in agriculture.
Okay but there’s a huge difference between the invention of the car and the invention of the self-driving car. I do think automation and continued tech advancements will usher in new industries and job opportunities for people, but how that actually affects quality of life for the average person will come down to how the economy is organized, and with the current trend of wealth flowing into fewer and fewer hands while the middle class continues to shrink, I’m skeptical of our current system.
>Why haven’t any of the thousands of scientific advancements throughout history resulted in mass unemployment? Why would they have? Scientific and technological advancements don't have a uniform impact on society. It certainly has resulted in unemployment in different sectors of the economy at different points in time, but not necessarily to an extent that it outpaced job growth elsewhere. >Why are you so sure it’s gonna happen now? IMO it's because we're seeing an increase in advancements that directly impact the need for labor to do a thing, instead of impacting the output of doing that thing. The former isn't necessarily a bad thing, but it just depends on the task at hand. The machine learning algorithms I develop, for example, are used to flag fraudulent college applications and regardless of how it's done, there's an upper bound on how many applications can be flagged. It benefits the employees vetting applications to use my algorithm in its current state because it cuts out 90% of the applications and allows them to get through all the applications before financial aid is disbursed. Here's the rub: since they're now able to handle all of the apps that they need to process, improvements to my algorithm no longer improve productivity, they just reduce the need for productivity in the first place. If my algorithm ends up being accurate enough, they'd only need to employ someone to generate data for me to update the model with, and if I were able to set the model up to effectively retrain itself, they wouldn't need to employ anyone and wouldn't need to pay me to do anything unless the infrastructure needed maintenance. It's not like things like this didn't happen in the past, but it wasn't feasible to automate this kind of work until the last decade or so, and I can do from the comfort of my own basement.
Because they weren’t AI. AI has the potential to make humans obsolete within a few decades. Join that together with advancements in robotics and hiring a human will only be profitable in very specific scenarios. We should welcome this with open arms, share the spoils and just lay back - but we can’t because an infinitesimally small amount of people just need to own all of it.
😂 Oh no! What ever could we DO without CAPITALISM?
Thrive? Remove the elephant from the room?
Seeing capitalism brought people out of poverty... no you wouldn't
If you think capitalism has at some point brought humanity into richer conditions, then would it be logical to think at some time in the future a new method of organizing wealth will someday replace capitalism.
Sure, but this is not to say it will be socialism or even that I will happen in our lifetimes. I highly doubt people living in feudalism accurately predicted the economic trajectory they were headed in.
If that method in the future does come about then great. I would be all for it. In fact would love to see it. But so far we have yet to see such a thing.
It also keeps them there strangely enough, and makes more impoverished on all fronts
The opposite in reality. But keep trying to belive that. The stats and reality prove different. https://cepr.shorthandstories.com/history-poverty/
[удалено]
GNOMEchompsky_64: This post was hidden because of how new your account is. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/CapitalismVSocialism) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Not only is UBI compatible with capitalism, it may end up being necessary as a way to address mass unemployment due to automation. UBI is a beefed up unemployment check basically. Enough so that you won't starve if you lose your job, and maybe enough rent a Room so you aren't homeless. It's supposed to keep people alive and consuming when they don't have a job, or even If they do
But capitalism expects employment and ROI from the benefitor. If UBI is granted to everyone whether they contribute or not, wouldn't that be socialism ? The question isn't in the sentence, but in the meaning of the words.
No because the means of production would still be at the hands of the bourgeoisie and they would still be exploiting surplus value from workers to profit. The difference would only be a reduction of the workforce and UBI as a way to stimulate consumerism - after all capitalism only works when there are people to buy the products - and avoid riots or even revolution brought by mass destitution It's like with Bretton Woods. The US and western Europe were scared shitless of the USSR's recent popularity for having won the war against nazism and its rapidly growing economy. They knew that a destroyed Europe with pre war wages and little labor rights could find socialism quite seductive. So they made sure to give workers a lot of welfare so as to prevent revolts. But once the 80s rolled around and then the USSR fell, well ..Those protections were slowly stripped back
So you mean the crony capitalists are already in the surplus profit margin and due returning their wealth back ? But are they doing it ? Will they ? Do you really think that'll happen ?
They will give some scraps when they feel threatened, yes, like the ruling classes always do. They'll still keep most of the wealth to themselves though Musk has publicly advocated for UBI and there are some American billionaires who defend that they should pay more taxes. These are a minority, but a minority that understands that the current economic situation is insustainable and that Someday the chickens Will come home to roost
Dude even if any goverment imposes 50% IT on the super rich, it still won't be enough to execute UBI on the poor whose population is quite high. And if there's any government who's ready to impose 90% tax and do communist things like these, the rich will probably get brain drained and get the fuck of their country. It's a cat n mouse situation which we can never solve.
I never said UBI would be used to erradicate poverty. It's the bare minimum for someone to survive on and that money mostly goes back to the capitalists anyway
Poverty's definition actually changes in every country btw. If survival is the goal, then the stuff government need to do are free education, food subsidies, residential guarantees and employment improvements. Socialism is the only way we can lift people from poverty. Giving away a basic income to everyone would render useless because an uneducated unemployed poor has no proper idea on how to lift themselves with the money you provide. Most of them will just spend it on leisures.
I'm a socialist I'm not defending UBI as the solution to capitalist contradictions, I'm just stating the logic behind it
The rich can get out of the country, but their Land, industries, machinery, etc. can't. And that's all we need, really The rich won't be missed, like they weren't in the USSR
The rich can get out of the country, but their Land, industries, machinery, etc. can't. And that's all we need, really The rich won't be missed, like they weren't in the USSR
A livable UBI coupled with universal healthcare, universal zero-tuition education, and universal rent control is the only way to make capitalism *moral* > there are still a lot of challenges and burdens that hammer us such as transport, storage, distribution, etc. All of these difficulties also require strength and will for us to work upon. Listen to yourself. "Logistics is hard, so we need to trust the benevolent leaders to get us the resources we need to survive, because they're rich they *must* know how to treat us well, yes I will go down Mr Bezos gobble slurp" > Let's say even if we overcame the world hunger. How would that help us when the will to live and thrive for the livelihood is at it's ultimate low ? If we eliminated world hunger the will to live and thrive would be at an *all time high*. The single biggest source of depression is the knowledge that the wage slave is trapped in the wage cage.
>universal rent control "In many cases rent control appears to be the most efficient technique presently known to destroy a city—except for bombing." ~ Assar Lindbeck. Rent control doesn't work. It reduces access to housing rather than increasing it. Only economically illiterate folks support it.
I would also point out that Lindbeck was a leftist economist.
Nothing marginalizes people faster than out of control rent increases
That's why the solution is to build more housing. Rent control simply shifts the problem and makes it worse: instead of a rent increase, you simply can't find housing and end up homeless. The overall quantity of housing is decreased.
There are more empty houses than homeless people in the US. Homelessness is not caused by a shortage of housing, at least in the global north. It's caused in the concentration of the housing in the land of speculative landowners
>There are more empty houses than homeless people in the US. [Badeconomics has disproved this myth](https://www.reddit.com/r/badeconomics/s/F1pua0MjaB) Most "empty homes" are either in the process of getting sold, or beat-up sheds in the middle of nowhere. Not to mention that homeless people aren't the only demand for homes. Anyone who lives far from their workplace, who lives with their parents, or who pays too much in rent, would benefit from building more homes. The issue is a shortage of housing, in the global north as well.
This is only true for a few cities. Very few cities have less then 10 empty housing units per 1 homeless person. So if 50% are in the process of being sold/moved into, and lets say 45% is unlivable we can still easily house half the homeless. Yes part of the problem is shortages in areas where people want to actually move, but to blame all housing inflation solely on that is delusional.
>Very few cities have less then 10 empty housing units per 1 homeless person. This is such a false statement. Name one city that has over 10 empty housing units per homeless person, I'll wait. Most "empty housing" is not in the cities. It's in rural dead villages.
Thanks for waiting Just one? Orlando, FL ~2,007 homeless ~124,182 vacant units ~62 vacant units per homeless New Orleans, LA ~1,314 homeless ~73,368 vacant units ~56 vacant unit per homeless Atlanta, GA ~3,240 homeless ~178,655 vacant units ~55 vacant units per homeless Houston, TX ~3,974 homeless ~159,470 vacant units ~ 40 vacant units per homeless Do you want me to keep going? Because if so out of the largest 100 cities in the USA only about 15 are below 10 vacant per homeless so it would be quicker to list those instead. Numbers are from 2023 Departments of Housing and Urban Development for homeless population U.S. Census's American Community Survey for vacant housing units.
Have a link for your sources?
More empty houses than homeless people is the IDEAL scenario. Would you rather more homeless people than vacant houses? Even ignoring the fact that cities with the most housing vacancies tend to have the least amount of homeless, there a multiple reasons why a house may be considered vacant. Most vacancies (>50%) are houses that are in between buyer and seller, one family moved out and another is moving in in a couple of weeks or so, this is clearly not the case where we could just throw a homeless person in there and call it a day. Many more homes are vacant because they are needing repairs or renovation. Here again, throwing a homeless person into a house that is actively being renovated is not a very eloquent solution. [https://www.reddit.com/r/badeconomics/comments/12yrk07/stop_comparing_the_number_of_vacant_homes_to_the/?rdt=58588](https://www.reddit.com/r/badeconomics/comments/12yrk07/stop_comparing_the_number_of_vacant_homes_to_the/?rdt=58588)
I'd rather not have people being homeless or spending most of their money on rent. Like in socialism Capitalist realism is a hell of a drug
Wouldn't no homeless people be the IDEAL scenario? Or a you think that's Impossible because reasons?
Of course no homeless would be the ideal. Who would disagree with that? It may not be impossible but it’s certainly pretty damn hard. No country has yet to completely eradicate homelessness. It remains to be seen if this can be accomplished. Until humans somehow erase their proclivity for war, homelessness will inevitably follow. But one thing is for sure, the country with the current lowest rate of homelessness in the world is the very much capitalist country of [Japan](https://www.developmentaid.org/amp/news-stream/post/157797/homelessness-statistics-in-the-world).
Plenty of socialist countries and a couple nordic countries have eliminated homelessness The thing is, If everyone has a home, how will speculators make money off artificial scarcity?
Did you even look at the source? The Nordic have very low homelessness they have not eradicated it completely. Which socialist countries and what data are you using to come to that conclusion?
But there are not empty houses in the neighborhood places where people are homeless. Rent Control is not necessary when supply exceeds demand, and in the case where demand exceeds supply rent control makes the situation permanent.
That doesn’t seem to the case, at least in the U.S. Housing affordability (which is heavily affected by supply) is definitely a significant cause of homelessness right now
https://unitedwaynca.org/blog/vacant-homes-vs-homelessness-by-city/
The problem with this argument is that most homes designated “vacant” are either not suitable for housing or aren’t truly vacant. Homes that just saw someone move out, homes going through renovations, and seasonal and vacation homes are large parts of this statistic. Not to mention the vacant homes that are just not suitable for human habitation. In reality increasing housing supply (and thereby decreasing housing costs) is a much more effective solution to (at least a lot of) homelessness in the U.S.
>Not to mention the vacant homes that are just not suitable for human habitation. Yes, there are videos on Youtube which show someone driving through small towns in some areas of the USA which are semi-ghost towns where the population has declined very significantly over the past few decades. Kind of depressing to see. These towns have plenty of vacant homes, which are barely or not habitable. But even if they were habitable, its completely infeasible for homeless people to live there - what would they do living there? These small towns can hardly provide the kind of services that homeless people might find in large cities.
Dishonest article. Their own source points put the majority of vacancy is either homes that people only live in part of the year or growth. Or homes that are being built. Most others point out also that many homes are in transition from being rented from one Tennant to another. Houses usually don't just sit there costing people money.
Yeah because some people owning many houses and leaving them empty for speculation while others are homeless is definitely a great thing Having to spend most of your money every money in order to get a roof under your head is such a great system that works well for everybody
Better empty than full of homeless drug addicts ODing and smearing shit on your walls
> A livable UBI coupled with universal healthcare, universal zero-tuition education, and universal rent control is the only way to make capitalism *moral* Let me see if I understand this correctly. A group of politicians, aided by a giant bureaucracy, confiscate at least 50% of your income, and then give you back what they think you should get in the form of cash and benefits. They also keep a big chunk of the money for themselves, which covers their lavish salaries, benefits, and gold-plated pensions. They basically manage your life, similar to a way a parent raises a child, except instead of love there is usually contempt. This arrangement is what you consider to be moral, correct?
>A group of politicians, aided by a giant bureaucracy, confiscate at least 50% of your income, and then give you back what they think you should get in the form of cash and benefits. If UBI means that everybody can live comfortably, then there's no problem with being taxed on your income. I consider lifting millions out of poverty to be more morally imperative than removing wealth from politicians, even if I would also prefer politicians not to live lavishly by exploiting their position. That is a separate problem. Anywhere there is income tax, salaries are decided with taxation baked in. Employers try their best to pay as little as they can get away with, and if there were no tax on income, your salary would be lower accordingly. Income tax isn't money that is being confiscated from you, because your gross salary wouldn't be as high if it weren't imposed.
>If UBI means that everybody can live comfortably, then there's no problem with being taxed on your income. How much money per person per year are we talking about? >Anywhere there is income tax, salaries are decided with taxation baked in. No. Consider a job that pays 50k per year. A single mother of three doing that job would pay much less than a single man with no kids doing the same job. The employer doesn't give a shit about their income taxes either way. >Employers try their best to pay as little as they can get away with, Yes, and prospective employees try to get as much pay as they can get away with.
>How much money per person per year are we talking about? There's many ways to go about it, especially taking into account a fully realised welfare system including e.g. child benefit in addition. For argument's sake, let's say enough to ensure someone earning minimum wage, unemployment benefit or disability allowance etc. is able to eat, afford rent and live comfortably, but not enough that somebody can simply choose not to work for no good reason. >No. Consider a job that pays 50k per year. A single mother of three doing that job would pay much less than a single man with no kids doing the same job. The employer doesn't give a shit about their income taxes either way. That doesn't change the fact that your gross salary would end up smaller if there was no tax to be paid on it. The base rate of income tax is definitely accounted for when determining competitive salary offers, it's baked in to a prospective employee's expectations based on the job market, and their requirements based on living costs. Tax relief is a separate issue.
I feel like implementing UBI, universal healthcare, rent control and tuition is quite literally handing over all resources to our benevolent leaders and entrusting them to get us the resources we need to survive.
Not in a real democracy it isn’t
How so? And what makes this democracy “real”?
Real democracy means you have control over the leaders. The reason you have a separation between the leaders and us is because you feel we don't reslly control them, which is true. Our democracy is. Stronger democracy would solve this.
The people actually ruling and in control of the government. In such a situation those leaders who aren’t benevolent can be replaced and the harm they do mitigated.
But we won’t be voting on each allocative decision for all the resources that we have just handed over to the politicians. So in effect, we ARE entrusting them to give us the resources we need when we need them.
Maybe, but bureaucracies tend to do just fine given good direction, and it’s the direction that the people need to control. You act like everyone voted into office is an absolute dictator, and that’s not the case in a healthy democracy.
Again, bureaucracies are usually a couple steps removed from the democratic process. But it seems like you agree that you are indeed entrusting them with our vital resources. I’m not saying they are cruel dictators, simply that they have no way of knowing what I need when I need it better than I do.
You’re dead wrong. Do you know how many people work made-up bullshit jobs that shouldn’t exist, and actually harm the economy, all because these people have to work to live? Middlemen, advertisers, gamblers etc. There are millions of them in the USA alone. A very small percentage of workers even work in food production anymore. I could go on for paragraphs, but my point is this: a baseline standard of living without doing any work is okay. Human life should have dignity regardless. For the jobs that need doing, make sure the wages are high, and people will gladly go to work to afford a better lifestyle for themselves and their families even if their needs are already met.
Ubi is just a band aid friedman came up with to address a failure of capitalism. Its still flawed because capitalism is . That and social welfare are bandaid s that prevent starvation and revolution. And when a welfare state is done properly it promotes social mobility instead of the dependence neoliberal conservative welfare produces .
UBI is how we will all die by starving to death but being "rich" and not understanding how this could have happened. UBI doesn't create food, wealth, or clothing. It takes the things that already exist within the economy and spreads them around. But it destroys the incentives to create those things. If your country implements a UBI, **run and don't look back**.
Why does everybody find it so hard to believe that a lot of people feel incentivised by the work itself and not the money?
because those are small minority. most people would not work if they could procrastinate.
That's the case for people who don't work with what they like
And…..? You think socialism or communism would change that?
It certainly helps with that
I’d love to hear how you can say that.
Being able to pursue an education without having to worry about being unemployed or homeless, workplace democracy, etc etc.
But both systems will require everyone to work. And not necessarily work in an area they enjoy.
Of course. But a greater freedom to choose and having a say in how the work is done helps to make It more tolerable, even if it isn't your dream job
Those who would rather procrastinate, given the opportunity to procrastinate for an indefinite amount of time, would discover very quickly that humans are not biologically programmed for indefinite procrastination.
How do you know? Seems like "Would" and "could" are the operating words here. Conditional and hypothetical if anything. >because those are small minority In theory, perhaps.
I like my job, but I'd still rather stay home than go to work. Most people do not like their jobs, and many absolutely hate their jobs.
Why? How can you be sure that you actually like your job if you’d rather not go to work?
Because it eats up about 9 hours of my life every day. I can think of many better uses for my time.
I’m sure you could, and I’m sure a UBI would assist in your financial stability if you decide to reduce your hours or quit altogether so you can put your time to good use. After all, most of us have got about 14 hours up our sleeves to keep ourselves fed, hydrated and physically and mentally stimulated before we need to go to sleep again, nobody wants to be bored for 9 of those hours just so we can eat.
>or quit altogether so you can put your time to good use. Great, I look forward to being paid to sit home. How much will each person receive each year?
(Total Monetary Capital ÷ Adult Population) - 60% = yearly UBI income
I don't know what that means. There are about 250 million adults in the US. How much would each one get per year?
Well, how much monetary wealth does the US possess?
If you feel incentivized by the work itself, then you are already doing that in capitalism. Capitalism doesn’t ban you from doing that.
This is true and I won’t deny that. It just gives me the shits when people make the assumption that incentives are strictly monetary.
The point is, in addition to the non-monetary rewarded work like open source software, much much more work are required than what you would do without monetary compensation.
We’re not talking about monetary compensation though, we’re talking about monetary incentive. People are less incentivised to work a job that pays minimum than they are to work a job that pays enough to pay off a house loan without heavy sacrifices. But minimum wage jobs *typically* provide adequate compensation for the work required. In spite of that, I swear that there are far more people out there who are most happy working a job they like for shit money than they would be working a job that pays really well, while the nature of the work is demoralising. Monetary incentive as a rule can’t be assumed in the case of the former.
How is minimum wage jobs provide adequate compensation for all the jobs that is required? Regardless of economic system there are unpleasant jobs that need to be done. You are also saying a tautology, if you like the job of cause you would be happy, but then how much the job is paying also influences if you like the job or not
I say *typically* as to imply that minimum wage should be adequate compensation because the minimum wage is supposed to be in line with living costs and inflation, but our standard of living often makes it look like it’s not enough in our heads and almost as often, that legitimately is the case. But of course, this only really applies to low-skill workers in ideal working conditions, while high risk workers should be compensated more due to working conditions being more hazardous to their health. And specialists in specific industries may require more compensation for application of their knowledge or skills in a setting where failing a task is not an option. Examples like these deserve to be paid more to match their output. At no point did I ever imply that pay influences how much or how little you like a job. In fact, I think the moment you start telling yourself to stick with your job because of the money is the moment you should consider resigning and finding something else. I may only be speaking for myself, but I believe that the only thing that influences whether or not you like a job is the factors of the job itself, the work environment, the processes, the clients, the peers and the boss.
The incentives for work aren't *strictly* monetary, but people don't work for free either.
I’m working a volunteer shift at a car festival this weekend, I’m assisting with the drift car rides. I’m an automotive enthusiast and I have a car that I’m in the process of building. After I’m done in the morning, I get to wander around and see the rest of the festival and talk to all the people at the trade stands. Am I working for free?
If it was a real job, they wouldn't let you wander around all afternoon. Also, you're describing a hobby. Most jobs in real life aren't hobbies. I also volunteer in my free time, but I wouldn't volunteer for my job, and certainly not put in the same amount of effort and hours if it was free.
Well, this is gonna boggle your mind, I used to do the build for this same festival as a 9-10 day contract, got paid about $400aud per day. It’s not exactly my hobby at that point, is it. Not by your definition it seems. And yeah, during the festival days on the weekend, they DID let me wander around while on the clock. Go figure.
Again, most jobs in real life aren't hobbies. You're not gonna find enough people who love filling shelves enough to wake up at 7am every morning for free. The idea that everyone would be willing to work for free is such a laughable one that idk why leftists are willing to die on this hill.
I would wager you would find more volunteers to stack shelves at a mum and dad small town grocer than you would a corporate supermarket. I would also wager that on a long enough timeline, corporate supermarkets won’t need shelf stackers, they’ll have figured out how to automate the process.
>UBI doesn't create food, wealth, or clothing. It takes the things that already exist within the economy and spreads them around. But it destroys the incentives to create those things. If your country implements a UBI, **run and don't look back**. I dont support UBI personally, but do you have any empirical evidence to support your claim in practise, multiple independent cases of a UBI actually, directly and severely reducing production of food, wealth and clothing.
He 100% doesn't LMAO.
> But it destroys the incentives to create those things. In what way? UBI gives consumers the money to purchase the goods that companies wish to sell.
Econ 101, read it
Maybe you should first, pal. Or take *more* Econ classes like I have
Reading marxist drivel is not taking more econ classes just like reading bible isn't learning physics
Slurping up the propaganda of capitalists is free thinking, though, right? Get over yourself
Getting money *phew* & not being able to afford anything "fuuuuuh"
Not having UBI or some basic floor basically means you think the only incentive that drives most people to do anything is starving or homelessness. I have a little bit more faith in my fellow human than that. Almost everyone wants more than just a basic small roof over their head and rice and beans. They want to travel and spend on experiences if nothing else.
The thing is with humans, is that everything is relative. When you set a baseline standard of living, then people will only want more. And that’s a good thing. We should always strive for more and better. But not at the cost of the opportunities of others, and not at the cost of future opportunities.
On the contrary, you can make the same argument for massive executive compensations and extreme ownership rights. They get used to it, feel like it's completely justified, regardless of how much value is stripped from the labor they own, and want more directly at the cost of others. That is literally capitalism. Passively earning even a billion dollars a year without lifting a finger is just "not enough." While true broadly. This phenomenon does not negate the need for the baseline of a decent life to be met. Decent being a nutritional diet, medicine, housing, and education at least. Working people on the lower end spent most, if not all, if not just all even more than they can on just these base things while for super high income/asset holding individuals these baseline expenses only make up a tiny fraction of the "income" (whether from assets or compensation)
That assumes that the others don't have the same baseline and would want to impede their own development.
It's not incompatible, but it isn't a great solution when the issue is a lack of supply of goods and services. Without addressing the supply all you'll get is more high velocity currency units chasing the same goods and services. Inflationary.
I have heard that 2% inflation is a golden standard for a country's economy. How would that fit in when UBI is implemented ?
The 2% number is somewhat arbitrary. It's low enough to not be felt by the average citizen, has a known track record, and provides a small incentive to spend, invest, keep capital flowing. An inflationary system which relies on debt, such as ours, needs to be in constant growth. When growth stops, people default, and the house of cards comes tumbling down. UBI is high velocity money. Not the same making credit more available via rate manipulation, for example. UBI is currency in the hands of those who will spend them on core goods and services. That would immediately cause inflation in those needed goods, if it isn't met by an equivalent increase in their supply. At the end of the day we don't care about having more paper nor ephemeral digits in a bank account. We care about having access to food, water, housing, energy, entertainment, etc. That's what we need more of.
>but it isn't a great solution when the issue is a lack of supply of goods and services. Ok. But how are we doing on supply issues? Last I checked, at least for food, clothing, and shelter, supplies are sufficient, and its distribution that is an issue more than anything else. While I do agree that UBI isnt a great solution, I wouldn't say that supply shortfall is the reason why.
>at least for food, clothing, and shelter, supplies are sufficient Lol. Food and clothing, maybe. But shelter absolutely not. There are more households (more people, smaller households) who want larger homes than before. And because of various regulations, we're not building much housing.
> There are more households (more people, smaller households) who want larger homes than before. Sure. But at the same time, 10% of the USA's housing stock is vacant. [**Source**](https://usafacts.org/articles/how-many-vacant-homes-are-there-in-the-us/) Also an issue [**in the UK**](https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/housing/bulletins/numberofvacantandsecondhomesenglandandwales/census2021) That figure was [**15.8% for the EU at the time the report was written**](https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/statistics-explained/index.php?title=Archive:People_in_the_EU_-_statistics_on_housing_conditions#Housing_characteristics:_unoccupied_dwellings). My point with all of this is that when you have unoccupied houses, plus a housing shortage, plus some level of homelessness, plus housing not being built, what you've got is a distribution issue. Not a supply issue, per se.
>Sure. But at the same time, 10% of the USA's housing stock is vacant. That's a myth [which has been debunked on badeconomics](https://www.reddit.com/r/badeconomics/s/F1pua0MjaB) Most "empty housing" are just in the process of being sold, or are beat-up sheds in the middle of nowhere. These are not houses that can be easily distributed. It's thus a supply issue, not a distribution issue.
Distribution is important, as it affects local supply. We as a country, in the US, have traditionally done alright. Not amazing, but better than most. Many other countries haven't fared so well, and so have struggled for long with lack of availability of the things they need and want. Wealth is a direct measure of the availability to the supply of goods and services we need and want. AI & robotics promise to increase the supply of anything they're able to disrupt, and so there should be a concerted effort by governments to employ whatever means available to do so. At the very least, if we wish this to be undertaken by the private sector, there should be an effort to incentivize supply increasing measures such as higher levels of competition , etc. With rising automation, however, the private sector should diminish along with the decrease in value in human labor. What we replace the current economic system with I don't fully know, but surely none of the ones we know of today.
Btw, I believe UBI will mostly become a thing in the global north and among some of the more developed nations of the global south. Can't see how It possibly could be implemented in Africa in the near future
Welp that's the most important place it is needed in the first place 💀
While I sympathize with the goals of a UBI, in capitalism, when there is a subsidy. Companies just find a way to reduce wages to compensate. You'd have to have a higher and strictly enforced minimum wage, super strong labor protections, and some way to stop them from also firing people to compensate for those things. Basically, they want their margins and are absolutely unwilling to cede ground. I kind of agree that it might be the only way capitalism can even continue unless there was massive labor gains and unionization in rapid fashion. Walmart and other low wage payers are currently doing what I said right now with food stamps and paying those savings directly to shareholders through dividends and buybacks. The amount of money they've spent on those shareholder returns is just about the exact amount of the average food stamp benefit of their employee base. That's not a coincidence.
If you give everybody a universal basic income there is no incentive to earn a universal basic income. It would just create the incentive to get ahead by demanding a higher universal basic income.
Capitalist here, I'd retort 2 things. 1. Although I personally don't support UBI, I'm aware that prominent Capitalist tuinkers did favor it. Milton Friedman, comes to mind, if I'm not mistaken. And if OP wants to challenge Friedman l's ideas, it'd probably take more rigor than just saying "all of these (vaguely defined) difficulties require strength and will" 2. Nothing in OP's text actually refers to capitalist theory or market theory anywhere. If OP claims that UBI isn't compatible with capitalism, it'd probably make sense for OP to actually refer to capitalist theory somewhere.
No demand for labor also conflicts with pure laissez-faire capitalism
UBI can be compatible with capitalism. This comes from a Yang supporter of the 2020 DNC race. That is just a farce claim. UBI could in theory make a country less stable, increase inflation, and even increase food insecurity (e.g., famine). So how you do it. How you pay for it. How you introduce it and the important of when (at least currently here in the USA) are very important considerations. Having said that. I do think with a strong economy like the USA without a risk of hyper inflation like right now there are arguments for UBI. I think they are pretty strong arguments but they are not slam dunk arguments. Every economic decision comes with costs. UBI will have a level of free rider problem. The good method of UBI is everyone is equally treated with it and because of the free-rider problem you shouldn’t make UBI disbursement checks enough for any comfortability. I think Yang’s $1,000 a month in 2020 was right on target and I think his overall arguments are pretty sound. Lastly, being a research person I cannot say the research is a net positive. Alaska seems to be positive but I don’t recall reading up on that. The research articles I had read back then were mixed.
I say we implement an across the board 20% UBI specific VAT in the US, so that those making $10-25/hr help, along w the super rich, pay the UBI of those who choose not to work, and simply spend all day gaming or sleeping. I think most people want “ the other guy” to pay for this UBI, not themselves. Rich people, corporations, hedge funders, generational wealthers. Eff that, everybody pays a 20% VAT, and everytime the cash register rings up the tax, it says clearly UBI TAX. We shall see how long nurses will be thrilled to pay for 25 year old men to be sleep late gamers, on the nurses back.
"Let's say even if we overcame the world hunger. How would that help us" "Is curing patients absolutely is a sustainable business model ?" Vibes
It’s not incompatible at all. Most corporations would welcome consumers with more money to spend.
I think world hunger has been influenced today, not only, by climate change but by imperialist policies of America & Europe. Africa, Asia, S & C America have seized peasant land to grow mono crops. The peasant diet, once rich in indigenous staples, is not grown. If we would have let 3rd world countries plant their own crops & helped them with farming techniques, irrigation & fertilizing, they would not be hungry.
UBI is the best solution because it allows anyone to opt out of competition. Not everyone is cut out for competition and nobody should have to work for an employer to survive. Baseline survival should be provided as soon as it’s feasible. From there people can live ascetic lives where they spend very little but own their own precious time to do what they want. And those who want to compete for more money and power can do so as well. This seems like something to get excited about where everyone wins. I don’t see any downside. Some people argue it will disincentive productive capacity but that’s not the case. Productive capacity is skyrocketing and we no longer need such a high labor force. So it’s unethical to keep people working for survival.
How does UBI solve the exchange rates and the CoL of different countries btw ? It looks like an impossible goal tbh.
UBI doesn’t need to do that. It’s meant to be more of a local solution. Harmonizing into one global system is not the goal. That said, I think the goal should be that it becomes the norm for humanity, much like other norms have taken off but don’t impact CoL. It could catch on as a norm that countries offer their people but the amount and type would depend on that particular countries economic system and realities. For example, many countries offer health care. That doesn’t mean all countries are offering the same plan, but the general concept of universal healthcare is catching on.
I'm not sure how you're connecting this up with UBI, though. Your position doesn't sound very well thought out.
giving people free food would cause more world hunger not less. Right now half the world works 24 seven 365 and only makes $5.50 a day or less. If you gave those people free food they would be much richer than they would be by working and so would never work again.
I mean, world hunger is being solved. Fewer people are malnourished or dieing from hunger than 100 years ago, but this is due to capitalism. Now is UBI incompatible with capitalism... I don't see how it is. Ubi is just redistribution of money. If it's through taxes or not money is always redistributed
Too many of the world's resources are in the hands of a tiny minority
Food logistics cost more than food production. Nations without reliable electricity also have next to no refrigeration. UBI will net increase hunger.
Capitalism is the reason for the need. With corporate profits driving the machine and technological advancement (AI, Robotics), jobs become less and less and the masses are still here. If not, Anarchy, not good for capitalism.
“ Even if produce enough food to feed everyone on Earth, there are still a lot of challenges and burdens that hammer us such as transport, storage, distribution, etc” First off, we already DO produce enough food for to feed everybody on earth. And secondly the thing you said about transport, storage, and distribution is kinda of the point, that despite producing enough food for everyone capitalism doesn’t distribute that food to feed everybody.
I have said a lot of times, that money can’t solve a problem that a lack of money didn’t cause, and as you said, it isn’t money that is causing hunger in numerous parts of the world. We have politically destabilized states, disfunction states, wars, warlords, etc.
> that money can’t solve a problem that a lack of money didn’t cause The cause of the problem is not being born an owner of the exclusively owned means of survival and being forced to buy that survival with money. The lack of money is just a symptom, not a root cause. The root cause is private ownership of common land which is a feature of capitalism.
That simply isn’t the case. It isn’t about money, or any garbage about ownership of anything. A person under a warlord in Africa, under a tyrant in an authoritarian nation, or in a country ravaged by war isn’t hungry for not having money. Money doesn’t help that person, because money didn’t cause their problem. What would help them most is a stable and functional government.
And yet rampant poverty and starvation still occur under “functional” capitalist governments like the US
Starvation? You are kidding yourself. “Food insecurity” happens, not starvation: https://impact.economist.com/sustainability/project/food-security-index/ In the USA help is available, and people use that help. Government and state provided food provision systems like SNAP. True hunger is caused by government instability, not economic system.
Food insecurity *is* starvation fucknutz
Kek
No it isn’t, starvation is a different statistic, so trade it very nearly doesn’t exist in the west. Starvation is when people die moron, when they don’t have enough food. Food insecurity is a different term with a different meaning. Do some reading on your way to school this morning.
> No it isn’t, starvation is a different statistic, so trade it very nearly doesn’t exist in the west. Your own fucking link disproves your stance > Starvation is when people die moron, when they don’t have enough food. No it is not, you utter imbecile. Starvation is the *process whereby people suffer from not enough food, which if it continues results in death*. Furthermore, people who die of diseases caused by malnutrition *have starved to death*, even if they still may have had calories. > Do some reading on your way to school this morning. Do some growing up *edit* Hah, instead, /u/TheMikeyMac13 took the pussy-child way out.
Too sensible. This statement will be unintelligible to the target audience. Try to rephrase in class struggle lingo. Yes, ridiculous and irrational but that is who you are trying to persuade.
I'm a marxist, how the hell would you even rephrase this in "class struggle lingo"? Like, yeah, that made sense, didn't it make enough sense to you to understand that every single fucking person on earth would have understood it? I can only imagine someone making such a braindead comment if you haven't understood anything communists have been saying, because all you understand is surface level shit that correlates with what you have learned from propaganda pos
The current material conditions necessitate temporarily facilitating bourgeois productive development. Words have different meanings for Marxists. Are you sure you understood?
What, no, that explaination doesn't even make sense here. It's like saying "burr, supply and demand, burr" when someone asks a difficult question about the economy Like, yeah, you're probably right that that's the driving force behind this, but you have explained nothing When someone asks a difficult math question and why the answer is π, saying "well, 2+2=4" is a correct statement, but completely inadequate in this situation >The current material conditions necessitate temporarily facilitating bourgeois productive development. And that sentence is just wrong most of the time. That's just some Maoist bullshit that never makes sense and is therefore easy to dismantle. It's almost a strawman, as stupid as it is.
Comrade, have you not dialectically reasoned that capitalism is a necessary stage of development and superior to those that preceded it? Conditions are not ripe for proletarian utopia nor for revolution. Foreign aid harms workers and delays the revolution both at home and abroad. The only pathway to lifting the masses out of poverty at this time is the necessary step of capitalism.
I've never had hunger in my whole life, the fuck you talking about matey, I still have a job
Well enjoy that entitlement
Entitled? I take it for granted. You live in a shit country if you don't
Well enjoy what you take for granted then
That need has been saturated for so long, I don't feel any enjoyment from it. My goals are aimed elsewhere
Any reasonable solution to world hunger would require the return of Africa to defacto colonies, and colonies are an expensive hassle.
Redistribution increases poverty. For the oligarchy this is the purpose else a rising middle class displaces them.