Laenart,
I'm not complaining about UBI. The problem I see is that out present
government will never implement it.
At least Ontario is planning to give it a try and it needs to be tested
to see what the problems are.
http://www.intelligencer.ca/2016/11/18/can-guaranteed-basic-income-work
On 11/25/2016 3:45 PM, Lennart Thornros wrote:
I think there are too mch of zero sum pessimism in the discussion.
It will let people chose to do what they like and are good at. That
will generate new enterprise and innovations. Thus creating more money
to circulate.I think flat taxing is best as that keep the interest up
to innovate.
People do not live only on bread . . . The entertainment industry
will grow. That makes people happy and a lot of artists
I think we will have more jobs. The companies need to be very small.
It is much easier to be competitive when you have no overhead and just
hire what you need when youneed it and someone can offer (see uber taxis).
We are in a new era and I think LENR has a place. If LENR can mean
distributed resources (avoiding greenhouse gases etc is a plus but not
the driving force cheap energy is), then it will help the development
of a new society.
New economic models is a must for successful LENR implementation.
Best Regards ,
Lennart Thornros
lenn...@thornros.com
+1 916 436 1899
Whatever you vividly imagine, ardently desire, sincerely believe and
enthusiastically act upon, must inevitably come to pass. (PJM)
On Fri, Nov 25, 2016 at 4:26 PM, a.ashfield <a.ashfi...@verizon.net
<mailto:a.ashfi...@verizon.net>> wrote:
Danial,
I don't agree. The output of robots can be taxed in a number of
ways so that the money is distributed to the population Rather
than being something the government spends it is something that
the population does. With UBI it is an alternative to socialism.
The money is just as real and still gets circulated. Those that
make, install and run the robotics will get super rich or they
wouldn't bother do it. Contrary to general opinion 73% of those
on welfare have jobs: it is just that they can't bring back enough
money to live on. If companies had shared the gains from
productivity we would not have had wage stagnation and the
transition could have been postponed a while.
In my opinion, the lack of growth in the US economy is due to so
many not having any money to spend. Reducing taxes and trickle
down won't solve the problem.
On 11/25/2016 7:57 AM, Daniel Rocha wrote:
There is an intermediate until full robotization. That is, when
robots are efficient but not that much. So, I wonder who will pay
the debts when robots/smart algorithms become more and more
advanced. With people being jobless, companies won't have to whom
to sell stuff. There is the suggestion of "basic income", but in
this extreme case, it is merely printing money, it won't
circulate with enough quantities to pay enough, well, basic
stuff. Not even companies will find ways to invest, since their
products will not yield profit, since there is nothing beyond the
basic to buy them. But, even if people slowly use the basic stuff
to buy some products, all the debts, and worse, with growing
interest, will not be pardoned.
So, in this intermediate stage, I think people will get despair
and there will be a societal collapse, if the debtors simply do
not forgive debts. I see some of the sort of stuff happening
nowadays. Many of the advanced countries are injecting money, but
a quite large portion of it is not used for investment, but it is
simply hoarded for especulation (futures investiment). It looks
like a vicious cycle. Japan, it seems, it is using negative
interest, but is not working well.
