Unconditional Basic Income - More than a Social-Political Concept

47 posts / 0 new

"Revolutions are very hard.. Sometimes holding fast to old structures will lead to the abyss. Then very high risks of a new beginning will be accepted to escape the far worse consequences of the collapse of the old structures."

The guaranteed basic income could prevent death from starvation and enable greater participation in culture and society. Solidarity. social justice and sharing open doors while market fundamentalism leads to exploding inequality, the disappearance of public spirit and generalized insecurity.

to read Thomas Straubhaar's introduction "Unconditional Basic Income - More than a Social-Political Concept" published in 2007, click on

http://portland.indymedia.org/en/2010/11/403950.shtml

demandside's picture
demandside
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm

Comments

we need to admit that we now live in a global economic system that CANNOT PRODUCE ENOUGH JOBS for everyone who wants them-

Even the USA has arrived at that place - there are simply not enough jobs due to population growth, automation and productivity gains - and there NEVER will be again.....

Do we as a species say to the people who can't get jobs "DIE IN THE STREETS"

while the predators and ultra-wealthy (redundant I know) make more more and more..... where it's never enough and leads directly to DEATH and MISERY to milllions and billions of people.....

THAT is the question we need to ask ourselves.....

and so far the answer is a resounding YES -

mtdon's picture
mtdon
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm
Quote demandside:

The guaranteed basic income could prevent death from starvation and enable greater participation in culture and society.

Nobody in the US dies of starvation

Elbridge's picture
Elbridge
Joined:
Sep. 24, 2010 8:05 am
Quote Elbridge:
Quote demandside:

The guaranteed basic income could prevent death from starvation and enable greater participation in culture and society.

Nobody in the US dies of starvation

Whether that is true or not- my gut tells me it's not true- there is so much being said in your rather short statement, though, that I cannot understand. The first problem is that it attempts to mitigate the moral outrage of how many people ARE dying from hunger world wide. Secondly, it ignores infant mortality, among other things, that have been closely tied to pre-natal nutrition. Thirdly, it implies that death is the only negative consequence of hunger.

I was going to call you all sorts of names and accuse you of being a typical right-wing moron but I don't think your perspective is 100% "conservative" and I don't think you can use stupidity as an excuse. What I'm hearing from you and others like you is that nothing really counts outside your own limited zone of influence. If you are well fed, the world is fat and happy. If your children are healthy, there is no reason for you to want policies that protect the health of other's children. It is a profoundly self-centered perspective that rings through your words. Am I wrong?

I find it strange that so many of the people who accept globalism through a fiscal lense completely reject it through a humanitarian lense. It is apparently fine for wealthy movers and shakers to exploit as many people as they like for profit, but to ask the same people to give up anything so that someone else can eat regularly is tyranny. There is a fundamental disconnect between where our wallets and hearts reside. Please explain this, if you can.

D_NATURED's picture
D_NATURED
Joined:
Oct. 20, 2010 8:47 pm
Quote D_NATURED:

The first problem is that it attempts to mitigate the moral outrage of how many people ARE dying from hunger world wide.

While the first premise was wrong, this premise is equally wrong. While there are people dying of hunger worldwide, I am not morally outraged by it. So I didn't attempt to mitigate it.

Secondly, it ignores infant mortality, among other things, that have been closely tied to pre-natal nutrition

While it may be tied to infant mortailty, it is not tied to infant mortality in the US.

Thirdly, it implies that death is the only negative consequence of hunger.

I'm not the one who said "guaranteed basic income could prevent death from starvation"

I was going to call you all sorts of names and accuse you of being a typical right-wing moron but I don't think your perspective is 100% "conservative" and I don't think you can use stupidity as an excuse. What I'm hearing from you and others like you is that nothing really counts outside your own limited zone of influence. If you are well fed, the world is fat and happy. If your children are healthy, there is no reason for you to want policies that protect the health of other's children. It is a profoundly self-centered perspective that rings through your words. Am I wrong?

Assume much? I assume your not really here to talk about guaranteed basic income or the basing of such a discussion on an obvious emotional ploy as death by hunger.

You did manage to derive a lot from a mere 7 words.

Elbridge's picture
Elbridge
Joined:
Sep. 24, 2010 8:05 am
Quote Elbridge:
Quote D_NATURED:

The first problem is that it attempts to mitigate the moral outrage of how many people ARE dying from hunger world wide.

While the first premise was wrong, this premise is equally wrong. While there are people dying of hunger worldwide, I am not morally outraged by it. So I didn't attempt to mitigate it.

You are not morally outraged, it's true. That's what I was trying to indicate came out so strong in your succinct response. It wasn't designed to do anything but imply a hyperbolic sense of urgency on the part of the author of this thread. Thus, I said, perhaps wrongly, that you were trying to mitigate HIS sense of outrage.

Secondly, it ignores infant mortality, among other things, that have been closely tied to pre-natal nutrition

While it may be tied to infant mortailty, it is not tied to infant mortality in the US.

Wrong.

Thirdly, it implies that death is the only negative consequence of hunger.

I'm not the one who said "guaranteed basic income could prevent death from starvation"

Fine, I retract that claim to the extent that you may have understood the myriad of negative societal effects of hunger but weren't honest enough not to nit-pick the author's words where you felt you could.

I was going to call you all sorts of names and accuse you of being a typical right-wing moron but I don't think your perspective is 100% "conservative" and I don't think you can use stupidity as an excuse. What I'm hearing from you and others like you is that nothing really counts outside your own limited zone of influence. If you are well fed, the world is fat and happy. If your children are healthy, there is no reason for you to want policies that protect the health of other's children. It is a profoundly self-centered perspective that rings through your words. Am I wrong?
Assume much? I assume your not really here to talk about guaranteed basic income or the basing of such a discussion on an obvious emotional ploy as death by hunger.

You did manage to derive a lot from a mere 7 words.

That's right. I am capable of making certain assumptions from what people say. Your reply was seven words. You weren't exactly talking about guaranteed basic income either, were you? You disagreed, I'm guessing, not with the fact that so many are hungary, but with the idea that food is someone's right. So, instead of giving an honest response that called into question the feasibility of the idea on practical grounds or the morality of the idea on selfish grounds you found the one stated fact that you could use to disregard the entire premise as wholely out of touch with reality. That's my assumption. I don't think I'm far off.

D_NATURED's picture
D_NATURED
Joined:
Oct. 20, 2010 8:47 pm

Elbridge wrote: "INobody in the US dies of starvation."

-----

Actually, they do. It's called malnutrition. A contributing factor of death you'll see listed on many death certificates. In my line of work, I've seen more than enough of those.

Toddle down to your local Hall of Records and check it out.

Slow starvation, quick starvation. The result is the same.

Retired Monk - "Ideology is a disease"

polycarp2
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm

Basic income is an unstated "human right". Even in Adam Smith's treatise on economics, or the later work of David Ricardo it is somewhat assumed that the labourer must have employment to meet his basic sustenance and the sustenance of his family. If people actually begin to starve, as they often did in sparse seasons in the 17th and 18th century, there is a breakdown of basic civilisation and risk of a revolution. A revolution brought on by this condition is the worst kind because the motivation is, although quite real and desperate, an emotional response. The results of such a revolution may be far from the "best" for the labourer, his family, or the capitalist. The institution of "poor laws" protected the utterly destitute from actually perishing of famine or the elements. Even the absolutely heartless "free market" capitalist must recognize an obligation to prevent the poor from perishing during a hard winter. If we could re-attach Marie Antoinette’s head to her body she could explain it better than I'm able...

Randy95023's picture
Randy95023
Joined:
Oct. 20, 2010 3:13 am

Malnutrition and starvation are not synonymous

stwo's picture
stwo
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm
we need to admit that we now live in a global economic system that CANNOT PRODUCE ENOUGH JOBS for everyone who wants them-

Even the USA has arrived at that place - there are simply not enough jobs due to population growth, automation and productivity gains - and there NEVER will be again.....

Do we as a species say to the people who can't get jobs "DIE IN THE STREETS"

The problem is that nothing we do is sustainable. There are simply too many people wasting too few resources because we've accepted growth as our economic paradigm when we need to accept no-growth. We need to reduce human population globally to a sustainable level of about 2 billion people through decreasing the birth rate to well below replacement. Right now, our push for cheap stuff and destruction of the environment has created a very strong impetus for developing nations to develop which will only such more jobs from the US and increase their desire for a higher quality of life, thus increasing the loss of jobs and environmental devastation.

Rather than contemplating an unconditional welfare program consider that we change our ways. That's the only answer.

jeffbiss's picture
jeffbiss
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm
Quote D_NATURED:
Secondly, it ignores infant mortality, among other things, that have been closely tied to pre-natal nutrition

While it may be tied to infant mortailty, it is not tied to infant mortality in the US.

Wrong.

No your wrong.. See how easy that is. I didn't have to back up my claim of you merely being wrong.

Fine, I retract that claim to the extent that you may have understood the myriad of negative societal effects of hunger but weren't honest enough not to nit-pick the author's words where you felt you could.

I'm perfectly fine with his desire to advocate for guaranteed basic income. I however disagree with his patently false reason for advocating for guaranteed basic income. You can't build a solid arguement for guaranteed basic income on quick sand.

That's right. I am capable of making certain assumptions from what people say. Your reply was seven words. You weren't exactly talking about guaranteed basic income either, were you? You disagreed, I'm guessing, not with the fact that so many are hungary, but with the idea that food is someone's right. So, instead of giving an honest response that called into question the feasibility of the idea on practical grounds or the morality of the idea on selfish grounds you found the one stated fact that you could use to disregard the entire premise as wholely out of touch with reality. That's my assumption. I don't think I'm far off.

You know what they say about assumptions?

Elbridge's picture
Elbridge
Joined:
Sep. 24, 2010 8:05 am
Quote polycarp2:

Elbridge wrote: "INobody in the US dies of starvation."

-----

Actually, they do. It's called malnutrition. A contributing factor of death you'll see listed on many death certificates. In my line of work, I've seen more than enough of those.

Toddle down to your local Hall of Records and check it out.

Slow starvation, quick starvation. The result is the same.

Retired Monk - "Ideology is a disease"

How bout I toddle down to the CDC. Nothing.

LSU did a survey statistically concluded 2000-3000 elderly die via malnutrition, primaraly due to old age.

Malnutrition is more prevalent among older adults, especially over the age of 70. They may eat too little, lack nutrition or have digestion problems related to aging. This can stem from certain medications, trouble chewing due to dental issues, problems swallowing or difficulty absorbing nutrients, according to the Mayo Clinic

So again, not something related to basic incomes.

Elbridge's picture
Elbridge
Joined:
Sep. 24, 2010 8:05 am

If the question is whether the resources of the earth can be shared sustainably by the present population, the answer is probably no. But, it is not impossible that a different pattern of interaction with the earth and each other could produce an abundance we could share successfully, so I do not want to make population and carrying capacity the big issue yet. We don't know a lot of the necessary information.

What does seem clear to me is that sharing and caring, or the guaranteed income, would help people eat and take care of themselves better than the present mess does. Economic stimulation to the bottom of any economy produces multiplier effects, so I don't get the problem of "jobs" being inadequate as if the economy depended upon jobs for everyone. We have been thinking that way as a matter of justice, but if only some of us need to work, we could share the load or allow some of us to do other good and useful things in the name of work.

If economics is only part of our reality, "jobs" do not have to be the only way people get paid or work gets done. What we think of as "jobs" are often not good work and could be done by machines. If that liberated the drones to do other work it would be a big positive. How to pay for it is simple when we realize that Commerce and The Economy, in a world of fewer jobs, needs to be taxed to pay for the society that makes its prosperity possible.

Family values are about radical sharing and caring. They are not about the primacy of the family in society as if "the village" were not an essential support. It is not about the proprietary ownership of children by parents. It is about a village of uncles, aunts, big brothers and sisters and fellow citizens whose security and prosperity matters to us all.

If you have not been watching the free medical clinic events and the people who come to them, you may be able to maintain the illusion that bad health and nutrition in America is a rare and isolated matter. You may think that it is only those who abuse themselves and fail to follow good practices that are involved. But neither is true. The crimes of our 'health insurance industry' should shame us all.

But they only reflect the radical stinginess and selfishness that has been pushed by the Right. I am not shocked that anyone would dismiss the hungry and homeless without a twinge of conscience; but I pity the fools who go there. I hope it is just the fear that caring will open a hole in the heart that will not close that keeps these people from the Sermon on the Mount and identifying with "the least of these."

Conservative fiscal thinking has become the enclosure of the soul. It is always a bad deal because the price of a soul is an oxymoron.

DRC's picture
DRC
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm
Quote Elbridge:
Quote polycarp2:

Elbridge wrote: "INobody in the US dies of starvation."

-----

Actually, they do. It's called malnutrition. A contributing factor of death you'll see listed on many death certificates. In my line of work, I've seen more than enough of those.

Toddle down to your local Hall of Records and check it out.

Slow starvation, quick starvation. The result is the same.

Retired Monk - "Ideology is a disease"

How bout I toddle down to the CDC. Nothing.

LSU did a survey statistically concluded 2000-3000 elderly die via malnutrition, primaraly due to old age.

Malnutrition is more prevalent among older adults, especially over the age of 70. They may eat too little, lack nutrition or have digestion problems related to aging. This can stem from certain medications, trouble chewing due to dental issues, problems swallowing or difficulty absorbing nutrients, according to the Mayo Clinic

So again, not something related to basic incomes. .

Perhaps you need to get into the real world. Toddle down to the hall of Records and look at the contributing cause of death on death certificates.Malnutrition is the contributing factor in many deaths, not the ultimate cause. In most cases. usually its an organ failure...the heart.

Aushwitz inmates escaping the ovens didn't die of starvation....they died of heart failure. A lack of food was the contributing factor. If you want to nit pic, you can claim lack of food had nothing to do with it.

You can even claim malnutrition doesn't lower the immune system...and kill people. It does. I've seen it.

It also stifles brain development. Permanent damage in children. who will never, ever develop the cognitive skills they otherwise would have.

Miilions have only one meal a day...sometimes none Look it up on the Dept. of Agriculture website. It doesn't effect their health or shorten their life. LOL

Here's a quick synopisis from the N.Y. Times: discussing the 45 million malnourished, hungry, forgotten Americans. http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/17/us/17hunger.html

The monastry does what it can with its foreign aid program to the U.S....a nation that evidently can't grow enough food to feed its own population, but our resources are too small and the need too great. A small community of monks just can't feed tens of millions.

Retired Monk - "Ideology is a disease"

polycarp2
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm
Quote polycarp2:Perhaps you need to get into the real world. Toddle down to the hall of Records and look at the contributing cause of death on death certificates.Malnutrition is the contributing factor in many deaths, not the ultimate cause. In most cases. usually its an organ failure...the heart.

Perhaps you need to drop a note to the CDC so they may further study your real world claim.

Here's a quick synopisis from the N.Y. Times: discussing the 45 million malnourished, hungry, forgotten Americans. http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/17/us/17hunger.html

Food insecurities is not starving to death. Nor would I consider Food insecurities a reason to advocate Guaranteed Basic incomes. Prehaps you would like to try a argument in favor of Guaranteed Basic incomes.

Elbridge's picture
Elbridge
Joined:
Sep. 24, 2010 8:05 am

Does "unconditional" income mean that people get income for life even if they don't work/produce anything? I'm just trying to figure out how this whole system is supposed to sustain itself.

Course in the mind of the left, I realize that money just comes out of nowhere. Is this just another one of those crazy schemes?

FreeMarketeer's picture
FreeMarketeer
Joined:
Oct. 11, 2010 11:00 am

If we can have a RIDICULOUS minimum wage (way too low to live on), why not a REASONABLE maximum wage of some sort? Who is so important that they need 10 sports cars and 5 vacation houses and a jet, a helicopter and a yacht, while other Americans WORK 16 hours a day for LESS than they can afford to live on?

You're OK with extreme wealth and extreme poverty in the same country, huh FreeMarketeer?

Suppose that human suffering is through no fault of their own - nothing to do with laziness - the system collapsed or something? Then what?

Because this is the way our country is trending.

It is quite unfortunate that you may never experience this firsthand, because I'd really like to know if you'd ever sing a different tune.

TimothyD11's picture
TimothyD11
Joined:
Nov. 13, 2010 3:46 pm

DRC- Good Post! Your paragraph about Family Values, The Village and sharing are spot on, but a bit utopian. One of my best friends of over 40 years is an Anarchist as is another, much younger co-worker. The idea of "community" is what allows the poorest of the poor to survive in third world countries but it slips into oblivion as people move into "1st World" status. Economist Manfred Max-Neef discusses this in his dissertation on "Barefoot Economics". Greed is a very ugly human trait that seems to mostly infect people as they accumulate More and More and More goods and items. While I'm not an Anarchist I am a Welfare-Libertarian and the two are somewhat closely related. It does sound like a paradoxical or even schizophrenic stance until you delve deeper, but this is not the place. We must ALL work together and remember that "Sharing" among citizens is a charitable act, whereas when the Government tries to enforce "Sharing" it too degrades into an unworkable form of Socialism. While a truly voluntary Socialism is an underpinning of any decent community (or Village, or Family) it loses its sense of purpose when it is imposed from above. Once again, Good Post and I wish more people would do more listening than talking. They might be surprised at how much they can learn... -Randy-

Randy95023's picture
Randy95023
Joined:
Oct. 20, 2010 3:13 am
Quote TimothyD11:

If we can have a RIDICULOUS minimum wage (way too low to live on), why not a REASONABLE maximum wage of some sort?

I'm not a fan of minimum wage either. Is that what is meant by "unconditional basic income"? "Unconditional" is the word that throws me. That means a person gets an income regardless of the conditions, doesn't it?

Quote TimothyD11:

Who is so important that they need 10 sports cars and 5 vacation houses and a jet, a helicopter and a yacht,

It's got nothing to do with how important someone is, it has to do with their ability to purchase and their values.

Quote TimothyD11:

while other Americans WORK 16 hours a day for LESS than they can afford to live on?

Once again, the attempt at class warfare by contrasting these 2 Americans. As if the guy with the jet has anything to do with the guy unable to get by on his 16 hours a day.

Quote TimothyD11:

You're OK with extreme wealth and extreme poverty in the same country, huh FreeMarketeer?

Nope, I think we need to do something about it. Let's start by getting all the money out of Washington so we can get the right people making the right laws, instead of greedy money-grubbers putting their own crooked politicians into DC that will do their bidding. Taxing people and sending more money to DC is exactly the wrong thing to do. Secondly we can nationalize the Fed and make it a government-owned bank so that the country's expenses can be paid via real money, not tax money. I think someone else on this board has mentioned that as a possible solution too.

Quote TimothyD11:

Suppose that human suffering is through no fault of their own - nothing to do with laziness - the system collapsed or something? Then what?

Certainly it is many times. I believe we need social safety nets like welfare and unemployment. We should keep those going but put strict enforced limitations on them so we don't create dependencies.

Quote TimothyD11:It is quite unfortunate that you may never experience this firsthand, because I'd really like to know if you'd ever sing a different tune.

WHAT tune? Apparently you aren't even listening to the song I am singing. I'm against handing people money for nothing.

Let me ask you this. You want people utterly dependent on the federal government for their livilhood?

There are situations worse than poverty. Like tyranny, for example. Best way to get to tyranny is to have a government takeover by the special interests - where we are right now - and then fund those interests so that all of us become dependent on them - which is where you want to take it.

FreeMarketeer's picture
FreeMarketeer
Joined:
Oct. 11, 2010 11:00 am

FM, the economy does not work to serve your work ethic theology, and while productivity in the economy is essential to have wealth to share, the high price of poverty makes it worth investing in the humanity of our neighbors even if they lack the grace of vocation. Coercing them into dutiful servitude is not exactly my idea of freedom or the dignity of the individual. And, the money given to the poor is spent in the real economy right away, making it a great stimulus when the economy is stuck on rich end bloat.

The social infrastructure of security and prosperity is based in the idea of a shared prosperity and security. When our neighbors do not succeed, it harms the collective, so helping them succeed is a good idea for all of us. This is why good societies invest in free education and healthcare. Guaranteed income also provides a platform for risk and the exploration of vocation. When people feel supported by their society, they tend to respond with more gratitude and willingness to give back and share. The effects of greed and selfishness are corrosive, as we see all around us.

Libertarians would like to pretend that human interdependence is not really our nature. They want to focus on freedom and individualism and not on the complexities of social reality and relationships. The truth of our nature is that the social brings out the individual, but not the reverse. When we discover the symbiosis of shared gifts and the wisdom of shared perspectives and a narrative to which all contribute, our individuality is no longer threatened by having to live as citizens and neighbors with others different than we.

America has an adolescent culture and needs to grow up. It is part of the coming rehab.

DRC's picture
DRC
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm
Quote DRC:

FM, the economy does not work to serve your work ethic theology,

What do you mean?

Quote DRC:

while productivity in the economy is essential to have wealth to share,

No, productivity in the economy is essential to having an economy in the first place.

Quote DRC:

the high price of poverty makes it worth investing in the humanity of our neighbors

Agreed.

Quote DRC:

even if they lack the grace of vocation.

Is this what you mean by my "theology?" That work is the same as godliness? Is that your accusation?

Quote DRC:

Coercing them into dutiful servitude is not exactly my idea of freedom or the dignity of the individual.

And coercing my neighbors into paying my bills so I don't have to work is not exactly MY idea of freedom or the dignity of the individual.

Quote DRC:

And, the money given to the poor is spent in the real economy right away, making it a great stimulus when the economy is stuck on rich end bloat.

There you go again with your failed "trickle down" ideaology. When will you realize that money always starts where it isn't, and flows to where it is? For example, see your other comment about free education and health care. First, you have education. Then, you pay for it.

Quote DRC:

When our neighbors do not succeed, it harms the collective, so helping them succeed is a good idea for all of us.

Yep. Question is how best to do that, DRC.

Quote DRC:

This is why good societies invest in free education and healthcare.

There is no such thing as free education and free healthcare. Repeat that 100 times a day and maybe some day you will get it. Oh, and also you don't "invest" in something that's free. The word "invest" means you pay for it.

Quote DRC:

Guaranteed income also provides a platform for risk and the exploration of vocation.

It can, if administered correctly and with the proper accountability in place. Without that, it just creates a generation of lazy people looking for handouts. One of the many problems we have with US politics is everyone just wants to elect people who give them their entitlments. And that's rich, poor, corporations and individuals. Everyone is looking for a big fat federal teet to suck on. And our freedoms unsurprisingly fade away.

Quote DRC:

When people feel supported by their society, they tend to respond with more gratitude and willingness to give back and share.

Fantasy bullshit. Show me one case with this result, and I will show you 100 with the exact opposite. Human nature is selfish whether you are rich, poor or in-between. We all want more and we all think of ourselves first. You don't believe that about yourself, you are delusional.

Quote DRC:

The effects of greed and selfishness are corrosive, as we see all around us.

Yes, but all you are proposing is trading one type of greed and selfishness with another. And you want powerful federal planners to oversee this new society. (I highly suspect you would rather be one of the overseers, not one of the recipients.)

Quote DRC:

Libertarians would like to pretend that human interdependence is not really our nature. They want to focus on freedom and individualism and not on the complexities of social reality and relationships.

I am not a libertarian. But yes, I want to focus on freedom and individualism, the very principles this country was founded on. I apologize, but I believe most of the country agrees with me, and you are just flat out wrong.

By the way, "interdependence" is just a nicer way of saying "Dependence on centralized planners who are smarter than everybody else".

Quote DRC:

The truth of our nature is that the social brings out the individual, but not the reverse.

Who created this "truth"? You? Sorry, I didn't realize you were the author of all truth.

Quote DRC:

When we discover the symbiosis of shared gifts and the wisdom of shared perspectives and a narrative to which all contribute, our individuality is no longer threatened by having to live as citizens and neighbors with others different than we.

No, freedom is the first and most important part of having a society that best contributes to everyone and promotes the best system for all. Freedom, DRC, not "symbiosis".

Good luck with your messaging, it will fall on deaf ears in this country, and rightly so.

FreeMarketeer's picture
FreeMarketeer
Joined:
Oct. 11, 2010 11:00 am
Quote Elbridge:
Quote D_NATURED:
Secondly, it ignores infant mortality, among other things, that have been closely tied to pre-natal nutrition

While it may be tied to infant mortailty, it is not tied to infant mortality in the US.

Wrong.

No your wrong.. See how easy that is. I didn't have to back up my claim of you merely being wrong.

I didn't think I'd have to show evidence of the obvious. It is a well known fact that malnutrition and infant mortality are linked WORLD WIDE. You seem to agree that the US has malnutrition and you seem to understand that the US has infant mortality but, in typical conservative fashion, you won't admit that one has anything to do with the other within the borders of the US, as if there is some magical force that prevents fetuses from starving to death in America. Congrats! You win the daily denial award.

Fine, I retract that claim to the extent that you may have understood the myriad of negative societal effects of hunger but weren't honest enough not to nit-pick the author's words where you felt you could.

I'm perfectly fine with his desire to advocate for guaranteed basic income. I however disagree with his patently false reason for advocating for guaranteed basic income. You can't build a solid arguement for guaranteed basic income on quick sand.

There YOU go, not backing up your claims. You never gave a reasoned argument, you merely said, nobody dies from hunger in the US. If there is "quick sand" you are standing in it.

That's right. I am capable of making certain assumptions from what people say. Your reply was seven words. You weren't exactly talking about guaranteed basic income either, were you? You disagreed, I'm guessing, not with the fact that so many are hungary, but with the idea that food is someone's right. So, instead of giving an honest response that called into question the feasibility of the idea on practical grounds or the morality of the idea on selfish grounds you found the one stated fact that you could use to disregard the entire premise as wholely out of touch with reality. That's my assumption. I don't think I'm far off.

You know what they say about assumptions?

Yes, I know what they say about assumptions. They also say some things about those who should know better but prefer to construct fantasies that allow themselves to continue believing things which are pattently false...such as that nobody in the US dies as a result of nutritional defecits.

D_NATURED's picture
D_NATURED
Joined:
Oct. 20, 2010 8:47 pm
Quote D_NATURED:

I didn't think I'd have to show evidence of the obvious. It is a well known fact that malnutrition and infant mortality are linked WORLD WIDE. You seem to agree that the US has malnutrition and you seem to understand that the US has infant mortality but, in typical conservative fashion, you won't admit that one has anything to do with the other within the borders of the US, as if there is some magical force that prevents fetuses from starving to death in America. Congrats! You win the daily denial award.

Congrats, you win the ASSumption Award for the Day. If only we were talking about guaranteed basic income for everyone on the planet would your assumption have any merit? Malnutrition is not a cause of infant mortality as recognized by the CDC. It might be located in “other” causes as a small percentage. Hardly worth of a guaranteed basic income system in the United States. Perhaps your content to making decisions based on faulty assumptions. I need a bit more than your fallacious assumptions. If you think is a epidemic, Bare and share. Other than that, don't bother telling me I'm wrong. It'll only end in failure for you.

There YOU go, not backing up your claims. You never gave a reasoned argument, you merely said, nobody dies from hunger in the US. If there is "quick sand" you are standing in it.

How much more reasoned argument do you need than GO TO CDC. BTW. I am not sure this is a trend with you. What I said was “Nobody in the US dies of starvation” If you’re going to quote me, try being more accurate. Accuracy is important. To me anyway.

Yes, I know what they say about assumptions. They also say some things about those who should know better but prefer to construct fantasies that allow themselves to continue believing things which are pattently false...such as that nobody in the US dies as a result of nutritional defecits.

You cracking me up, that is a mighty long bridge your building. Starvation to Hunger to nutritional deficits’. What next.. People die because they are sad so we need a guaranteed basic income?

Elbridge's picture
Elbridge
Joined:
Sep. 24, 2010 8:05 am
Quote Elbridge:
Quote polycarp2:Perhaps you need to get into the real world. Toddle down to the hall of Records and look at the contributing cause of death on death certificates.Malnutrition is the contributing factor in many deaths, not the ultimate cause. In most cases. usually its an organ failure...the heart.

Perhaps you need to drop a note to the CDC so they may further study your real world claim.

Here's a quick synopisis from the N.Y. Times: discussing the 45 million malnourished, hungry, forgotten Americans. http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/17/us/17hunger.html

Food insecurities is not starving to death. Nor would I consider Food insecurities a reason to advocate Guaranteed Basic incomes. Prehaps you would like to try a argument in favor of Guaranteed Basic incomes.

Food insecurity,...what used to be called hunger, Hungry people still call it hunger, Not food insecurity. The goal is to eliminate hunger, not find another euphermism. The 2ed and 3ed world has hunger, the 1 st word has food insecurity.

In this vision of min wage for all, Would this idea take the place of welfare, food stamps etc?

shalwechat's picture
shalwechat
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm
Quote FreeMarketeer:

And coercing my neighbors into paying my bills so I don't have to work is not exactly MY idea of freedom or the dignity of the individual.

If conservatives could get past this ONE stereotype they might see the situation for how it actually is.

VERY FEW people want a free ride FreeMarketeer. The VAST majority of people want meaningful employment that pays enough for them to survive. IF that doesn't exist for all who seek it, we can either kick in to give them the bare minimum to survive OR we can cut them loose and see what happens to them.

Perhaps they can get 2 minimum wage jobs in NYC and STILL not afford the rent - especially after they paid the day care for their 2 children.

Grey areas - start noticing them.

TimothyD11's picture
TimothyD11
Joined:
Nov. 13, 2010 3:46 pm

Tim, I was merely responding in kind to DRC's ridiculous statement:

"Coercing them into dutiful servitude is not exactly my idea of freedom or the dignity of the individual. "

And you didn't seem to notice most of my other posting, rather, choosing to focus on this one statement. You will notice that I am not against a public safety net, as long as it's reasonable and provides a means to get people off the assistance and back to supporting themselves as productive citizens.

Giving every citizen a lifelong guaranteed income whether they work or not is not only unsustainable, it's immoral (which is why DRC thinks my statements contain a religious overtone) and only serves to create a dependency on government by the citizens. That's a step closer to tyranny.

FreeMarketeer's picture
FreeMarketeer
Joined:
Oct. 11, 2010 11:00 am
Quote FreeMarketeer:

There is no such thing as free education and free healthcare. Repeat that 100 times a day and maybe some day you will get it. Oh, and also you don't "invest" in something that's free. The word "invest" means you pay for it.

"If you think health care is expensive now, just wait until it's free"

PJ O'Rourke

Instant rim shot

PeeWee Returns's picture
PeeWee Returns
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm

No healthcare is NOT free in countries which have socialized health care. But even when you are paying for it with your tax money it is still MUCH cheaper than health insurance in the states.

I mean why not privately pay for everything in America. Where do you draw the line?

meljomur's picture
meljomur
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm
Quote meljomur:

No healthcare is NOT free in countries which have socialized health care. But even when you are paying for it with your tax money it is still MUCH cheaper than health insurance in the states.

I mean why not privately pay for everything in America. Where do you draw the line?

You get what you pay for.

Elbridge's picture
Elbridge
Joined:
Sep. 24, 2010 8:05 am
Quote meljomur:

No healthcare is NOT free in countries which have socialized health care. But even when you are paying for it with your tax money it is still MUCH cheaper than health insurance in the states.

I mean why not privately pay for everything in America. Where do you draw the line?

Well, at least we are seeing some honesty here. You are apparently happy to pay the higher tax rates for the health care you receive, such as it is. Some people are ok with sending most of their money to a central government that then doles out goodies to their populations. I get that.

I don't prefer that setup, thanks. You let me know what happens the day your system goes bankrupt. Don't come crying to your private citizens for a bailout, or to the US government. We've sent the UK enough money already. Trust me, the day is coming when all of these wonderful national health care systems are going to come crashing down. It won't be pretty. But I must say it will be interesting to watch the reactions of all the Euros who are suddenly yanked off the teat and thrust into reality!

FreeMarketeer's picture
FreeMarketeer
Joined:
Oct. 11, 2010 11:00 am
Quote FreeMarketeer:

You let me know what happens the day your system goes bankrupt.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/health/7908742/Axe-falls-on-NHS-services.html

Already is.

* Restrictions on some of the most basic and common operations, including hip and knee replacements, cataract surgery and orthodontic procedures.

* Plans to cut hundreds of thousands of pounds from budgets for the terminally ill, with dying cancer patients to be told to manage their own symptoms if their condition worsens at evenings or weekends.

* The closure of nursing homes for the elderly.

* A reduction in acute hospital beds, including those for the mentally ill, with targets to discourage GPs from sending patients to hospitals and reduce the number of people using accident and emergency departments.

* Tighter rationing of NHS funding for IVF treatment, and for surgery for obesity.

* Thousands of job losses at NHS hospitals, including 500 staff to go at a trust where cancer patients recently suffered delays in diagnosis and treatment because of staff shortages.

Free Healthcare Rocks

Elbridge's picture
Elbridge
Joined:
Sep. 24, 2010 8:05 am
You get what you pay for.
And we're overpaying, big time. You'll note that this is from an insurance industry group study. Also, it is utterly ridiculous to believe that we have a good health care system. Over all, it exists to produce as high a profit as can be gained from patients. Thee are multiple problems with our system and the primary one is that it's run for profit not for health care.

jeffbiss's picture
jeffbiss
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm
Quote jeffbiss:
You get what you pay for.
And we're overpaying, big time. You'll note that this is from an insurance industry group study. Also, it is utterly ridiculous to believe that we have a good health care system. Over all, it exists to produce as high a profit as can be gained from patients. Thee are multiple problems with our system and the primary one is that it's run for profit not for health care.

I'm sure If I was to read that report it would state the obvious. When government dictates what it will pay for a service, it will be lower than when market dictates the price. Not a huge shock.

UK is an example of what will happen when a government "safety net" is turned into a Government Service. When the service fails, there is NO other "safety net"

Elbridge's picture
Elbridge
Joined:
Sep. 24, 2010 8:05 am
Quote Elbridge:
Quote D_NATURED:

I didn't think I'd have to show evidence of the obvious. It is a well known fact that malnutrition and infant mortality are linked WORLD WIDE. You seem to agree that the US has malnutrition and you seem to understand that the US has infant mortality but, in typical conservative fashion, you won't admit that one has anything to do with the other within the borders of the US, as if there is some magical force that prevents fetuses from starving to death in America. Congrats! You win the daily denial award.

Congrats, you win the ASSumption Award for the Day. If only we were talking about guaranteed basic income for everyone on the planet would your assumption have any merit? Malnutrition is not a cause of infant mortality as recognized by the CDC. It might be located in “other” causes as a small percentage. Hardly worth of a guaranteed basic income system in the United States.

You keep mentionin the CDC. Well, it didn't take long to disprove your ASSertion. Look at this:

http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/dvs/LINK01WK45.pdf

It lists, very clearly, nutritional defecits, as a cause of infant mortality.

Perhaps your content to making decisions based on faulty assumptions. I need a bit more than your fallacious assumptions. If you think is a epidemic, Bare and share. Other than that, don't bother telling me I'm wrong. It'll only end in failure for you.

First of all it's "you're" not "your". Secondly, your previous statement about small percentages is a moving of the goal posts, as the claim we are disputing is that "NObody dies of hunger in the US", which is something YOU never backed up with facts. So, even if only one person has died of hunger, you're wrong.

Now, feel free to rephrase your original post to more accurately reflect your position but first accept that you wrote something ignorant and politically motivated that was neither literally true or, in any way, proved the lack of necessity for a guaranteed basic income. As if, the only reason for guaranteeing a living wage is to prevent death. Even a conservative should know there are things other than death to fear.

There YOU go, not backing up your claims. You never gave a reasoned argument, you merely said, nobody dies from hunger in the US. If there is "quick sand" you are standing in it.

How much more reasoned argument do you need than GO TO CDC. BTW. I am not sure this is a trend with you. What I said was “Nobody in the US dies of starvation” If you’re going to quote me, try being more accurate. Accuracy is important. To me anyway.

I was paraphrasing, which was more than sufficient to describe a statement made from a position of ignorance.

Yes, I know what they say about assumptions. They also say some things about those who should know better but prefer to construct fantasies that allow themselves to continue believing things which are pattently false...such as that nobody in the US dies as a result of nutritional defecits.

You cracking me up, that is a mighty long bridge your building. Starvation to Hunger to nutritional deficits’. What next.. People die because they are sad so we need a guaranteed basic income?

LOL. Now YOU'RE cracking ME up. Starvation, hunger and nutritional defecits are three ways of describing the same thing. Sadness is not synonymous with any of those so, again, you fail. Are you arguing that if I don't use the exact same phrase each time I'm communicating a different message?

What I'm, not assuming, but gathering from your statement is that you have no argument but to attempt the most childish of denial tactics. You said that "nobody in the US dies of starvation" which means that not even one person in the US dies as a result of a lack of proper nutrition. Do you still stand by that statement? All I'm hearing is you criticizing me for phrasing things inconsistantly, which is mighty weak.

D_NATURED's picture
D_NATURED
Joined:
Oct. 20, 2010 8:47 pm

Without going through all the previous verbiage in this thread, I have recently had the idea that there should be an international minimum wage. I think that is similar to the unconditional minimum income except that only working people would be guaranteed the minimum wage. However, I also agree with the human right of guaranteeing people with certain minimum standards of living, and education, etc. which i believe will help prevent catastrophes in the future.

Natural Lefty's picture
Natural Lefty
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm

Quote D_NATURED:

You keep mentioning the CDC. Well, it didn't take long to disprove your ASSertion. Look at this:

http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/dvs/LINK01WK45.pdf

It lists, very clearly, nutritional deficits, as a cause of infant mortality.

Truly, if only you could hear me laughing.

Drum roll please................. Grand total “Nutritional deficiencies (all races) (4)

Third to last… beat out “Hodgkin's disease “ &“diseases of the ear”

You nailed me to the wall... wow; there were 4 cases of Nutritional Deficiencies in the US out of 27,523 cases. Apparently, I didn't go low enough on the list. I will amend my terminology to reflect there are "Virtual" NO cases. Which accounts for .00014% of infant mortality. Good work, we all learn something today.

Can you show where these 4 cases would have been averted if we had a guaranteed basic income system?

First of all its "you're" not "your"

As if I care.

Secondly, your previous statement about small percentages is a moving of the goal posts, as the claim we are disputing is that "NObody dies of hunger in the US", which is something YOU never backed up with facts. So, even if only one person has died of hunger, you're wrong.

Alright, you did your work. You get your props. That’s what I get for using absolute language. Unfortunately, it won’t change my position but it will change the wording

I will officially amend my original statement:

Starvation is the very least of our problem in the US.

Better?


Elbridge's picture
Elbridge
Joined:
Sep. 24, 2010 8:05 am

So England is having a problem with paying for their health care system - for whatever reason - so we must conclude that our system - a system in which fewer and fewer people can afford it every day, is the best way?

TimothyD11's picture
TimothyD11
Joined:
Nov. 13, 2010 3:46 pm

No, we got work to do for sure. But we need not assume that nationalizing the system is the answer.

FreeMarketeer's picture
FreeMarketeer
Joined:
Oct. 11, 2010 11:00 am
Quote Natural Lefty:I have recently had the idea that there should be an international minimum wage. .

Holy Crap. That would be a LOT of money being transfered

Elbridge's picture
Elbridge
Joined:
Sep. 24, 2010 8:05 am
Quote TimothyD11:

So England is having a problem with paying for their health care system - for whatever reason - so we must conclude that our system - a system in which fewer and fewer people can afford it every day, is the best way?

Government is a better safety net then an administrator.

Elbridge's picture
Elbridge
Joined:
Sep. 24, 2010 8:05 am

Yeah, to where it ought to go!

Natural Lefty's picture
Natural Lefty
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm
Quote Elbridge:

Quote D_NATURED:

You keep mentioning the CDC. Well, it didn't take long to disprove your ASSertion. Look at this:

http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/dvs/LINK01WK45.pdf

It lists, very clearly, nutritional deficits, as a cause of infant mortality.

Truly, if only you could hear me laughing.

Drum roll please................. Grand total “Nutritional deficiencies (all races) (4)

Third to last… beat out “Hodgkin's disease “ &“diseases of the ear”

You nailed me to the wall... wow; there were 4 cases of Nutritional Deficiencies in the US out of 27,523 cases. Apparently, I didn't go low enough on the list. I will amend my terminology to reflect there are "Virtual" NO cases. Which accounts for .00014% of infant mortality. Good work, we all learn something today.

Can you show where these 4 cases would have been averted if we had a guaranteed basic income system?

First of all its "you're" not "your"

As if I care.

Secondly, your previous statement about small percentages is a moving of the goal posts, as the claim we are disputing is that "NObody dies of hunger in the US", which is something YOU never backed up with facts. So, even if only one person has died of hunger, you're wrong.

Alright, you did your work. You get your props. That’s what I get for using absolute language. Unfortunately, it won’t change my position but it will change the wording

I will officially amend my original statement:

Starvation is the very least of our problem in the US.

Better?

Amend or not, it doesn't matter. Neither does it matter that you were "nailed to a wall". If your underlying foundation of apathy for the lives of other humans is not changed, there is no victory in hearing your bitter confession.

When you stated the false premise that nobody starved in the US you did more than just refute one small portion of the original post. You basically said, if nobody's dying, there's no problem. As if all the other torments of poverty are inconsequential. I may have falsely assumed that but your following statements confirmed my suspicions. So, I am sorry for pointing out the fact that there was more to your words than the original lie but I'm more sorry that you have to be so selfish.

D_NATURED's picture
D_NATURED
Joined:
Oct. 20, 2010 8:47 pm
Quote D_NATURED:

When you stated the false premise that nobody starved in the US you did more than just refute one small portion of the original post.

I woke up this morning and could barely look myself in the mirror. Then I saw this sentence.

You see, I had two choices yesterday. The Easy road, which I did post. And the Harder road, although more accurate road. I wrote two posts yesterday. The one I posted was the second one. The first one was challenging nutritional deficiencies was not in fact starvation. I had all my ducks in a row except one. Webster’s definition of Starvation was too ambiguous. You see, CDC defines nutritional deficiencies as being deficient of certain nutrients. A whole host of problems can happen when a infant doesn’t get the recommended materials for a developing infant. Iron deficiencies, Calcium and the such. Such as the Infants of mothers that are Vegans. The lack of Iron and B12 is fatal in infants. Obviously, While the Baby is well feed, yet is “starving” for iron and B12. Hence my confliction, To me that merely manslaughter. Your lifestyle choices killed your baby, it wasn’t from a lack of food or the baby was hungry.

As it stands, I still do not believe that anybody starves to death in the US. (I know I feel better) But I’ll at least acknowledge the definitions are ambiguous and gladly accept the ridicule of my rational, logical position.

If your underlying foundation of apathy for the lives of other humans is not changed, there is no victory in hearing your bitter confession.

No it hasn’t. Just as I don’t starting crying and getting sad thinking that in the time I took me to write this sentence. 4 people in the US alone died and that by the time I finish this post over 200 will have died. 6000 people died since I wrote that post yesterday. I reserve my apathy for things I can affect or control.

Elbridge's picture
Elbridge
Joined:
Sep. 24, 2010 8:05 am

Elbridge wrote:

You see, CDC defines nutritional deficiencies as being deficient of certain nutrients. A whole host of problems can happen when a infant doesn’t get the recommended materials for a developing infant. Iron deficiencies, Calcium and the such. Such as the Infants of mothers that are Vegans. The lack of Iron and B12 is fatal in infants. Obviously, While the Baby is well feed, yet is “starving” for iron and B12. Hence my confliction, To me that merely manslaughter. Your lifestyle choices killed your baby, it wasn’t from a lack of food or the baby was hungry.

---------

Reminds me of my cousin. She was breast-fed and nearly died. You see, her mother could only afford to eat beans at the time....no meat, no veggies. Just beans day after day.

What should have been the best food possible for an infant wasn't because of the poverty of the mother.

The kid had the bad judgement of being born during the Great Depression.

Poverty kills.

Retired Monk - "Ideology is a disease"

polycarp2
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm
Quote polycarp2:

The kid had the bad judgement of being born during the Great Depression.

Poverty kills.

Your saying I didn't qualify my statement with a time frame , so examples of the great depression or the Pilgrims at Plymouth Rock are acceptable. OK then

Elbridge's picture
Elbridge
Joined:
Sep. 24, 2010 8:05 am

Some in the U.S. experience the Great Depression even today. A diet of beans or rice kills.

Don't worry about a basic income. The $20 Trillion globally to make $80 billion is sub-prime mortgages whole is bankrupting the western world. The economies of nations are collapsing like dominoes. Iceland, Greece, the Baltic States, now Ireland. Next up Spain, Portugal, Italy and possibly France. Then on to the European prize, the wealth of Germany.

Pensions, education funding and the like are being re-directed into bank vaults and pockets of financiers. A basic income in a world driven into bankruptcy by finance is a pipe dream.

$20 trillion globally to make less than $80 billion in sub-prime mortgages whole is supposed to make sense. It doesn't. It guaranteed $20 trillion in derivative plays by financiers and banksters.

Banksters and financiers are laughing all the way to the bank as the people in one nation after another are driven into poverty. There is no room for a basic income in that.

As Paul Craig Roberts notes, "soon even the lower tiers of the rich will be destroyed."

The meltdown marches on. Finance reigns supreme.

Retired Monk - "Ideology is a disease"

polycarp2
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm
Quote Elbridge:
Quote D_NATURED:

When you stated the false premise that nobody starved in the US you did more than just refute one small portion of the original post.

I woke up this morning and could barely look myself in the mirror. Then I saw this sentence.

Really? Over a post on a stupid talk show web site (no offense Thom)? Wow, I underestimate the emotional variability of my fellow members.

You see, I had two choices yesterday. The Easy road, which I did post. And the Harder road, although more accurate road. I wrote two posts yesterday. The one I posted was the second one. The first one was challenging nutritional deficiencies was not in fact starvation. I had all my ducks in a row except one. Webster’s definition of Starvation was too ambiguous. You see, CDC defines nutritional deficiencies as being deficient of certain nutrients. A whole host of problems can happen when a infant doesn’t get the recommended materials for a developing infant. Iron deficiencies, Calcium and the such. Such as the Infants of mothers that are Vegans. The lack of Iron and B12 is fatal in infants. Obviously, While the Baby is well feed, yet is “starving” for iron and B12. Hence my confliction, To me that merely manslaughter. Your lifestyle choices killed your baby, it wasn’t from a lack of food or the baby was hungry.

LOL. Whatever makes you feel better when the infant is dead, Elbridge. Research and find a valid reason not to give a shit. I know you can do it.

As it stands, I still do not believe that anybody starves to death in the US. (I know I feel better) But I’ll at least acknowledge the definitions are ambiguous and gladly accept the ridicule of my rational, logical position.

It is your moral vision that is ambiguous. As I already stated, there are enough horrible side effects from under-nourishment to be worried about before death is even a concern. Dying is just the final stage for the most affected. Do you also want to argue that nobody is under-nourished in the US?

If your underlying foundation of apathy for the lives of other humans is not changed, there is no victory in hearing your bitter confession.

No it hasn’t. Just as I don’t starting crying and getting sad thinking that in the time I took me to write this sentence. 4 people in the US alone died and that by the time I finish this post over 200 will have died. 6000 people died since I wrote that post yesterday. I reserve my apathy for things I can affect or control.

[/quote]

Four people died of what, Elbridge? Old age? Smoking? Murder? You see, death-in and of itself-is not bad or good, it's just a part of the cycle. We judge the death by the circumstances. Some deaths are unfair and others are welcome or simple deserved. However, to allow one man to starve so that another can hoard valuables is a crime against humanity, as an entity, as well as a crime against the idea that we, as humans, are capable of a greater caring, a spiritual love. When a person's life-in quantity or quality- is allowed to be compromised by the simple lack of food, there is a message being sent that our fiscal autonomy is more important to us than our connection to each other. Money over men...fuedalism. That's what you desire.

D_NATURED's picture
D_NATURED
Joined:
Oct. 20, 2010 8:47 pm

Currently Chatting

Earth's credit card has been maxed out!

If Earth's resources were a credit card, we have already maxed out our entire allocation for this year. The think thank Global Footprint Network announced that August 19th was “Earth Overshoot Day,” meaning that all the resources we use after that day exceed what our planet can produce in a single year.

Powered by Pressflow, an open source content management system