Mexico has a right wing Green Party. But that's simply atypical. This? Absolutely strange.

"It is in fact the precinct of rational people when looking to encourage work and community engagement and give people a floor beneath which they’re not allowed to fall"

Yeah, this sounds a lot more like devolution, which could be a suitable platform for a functional moderate political platform. Because, of course, determining that this type of program works for a community (or even all communities individually) won't accurately predict the benefits of a similar state-wide program.

Perhaps an upside of polarization in the US could be that we end up with the kind of economic experimentation seen here that could revolutionize contemporary economics?

UBI is an extreme liberal policy; not socialist. It fits with the right far more easily; and I abhor the recent left experiments with promoting it.

@TrPrado, the mexican "green party" is anything but green

They're also anything but relevant ;)

@ HR: Could you expand on that point?

I'm anti-socialism, but I'm eagerly awaiting some of his research and findings. Nothing else, it'll have some great insight into economic socialist research.

i'm never going to turn away data.

and once Canada goes bankrupt, more industries will move to the US!

Also: I think he's a traditionalist conservative type: not an economic monetarist

@Jamie

UBI is essentially a tool to abolish welfare and make for a smaller government. Both of which are right wing philosophies; not left wing. UBI ends targetted welfare and just gives everyone the same amount. Welfare partially closes the wealth gap (not always very well, sure, but that's part of the motive behind it). UBI fails to do even that. The poor stay poor.

Yeah, when r/libertarian is sometimes OK with UBI it kinda tells you what it's for: an excuse to dismantle actual government programs that might work, to also be removed itself later immediately.

"The poor stay poor"

Not a valid argument against UBI or welfare since neither of those claim to solve the problems of poverty, merely to alleviate some of the societal symptoms of extreme inequality. UBI is essentially communitarian: antithetical to economic liberalism, fairly moderate on the American political spectrum.

"UBI fails to do even that. The poor stay poor."

That depends, if the poor aren't paying taxes to fund the UBI, then this does result in a closing of the wealth gap. But you are right, it means the social welfare state can focus on giving people money that they need (without any extra means testing, or administrative costs... ) While the revenue department focuses on what it does best, taxing people to raise needed revenue...

They can stop making people wealthy by thinking about tax breaks, and instead just do one thing well. While the Social welfare department can focus entirely on social welfare. (of course individual government will continue to tinker with the tax code as a means to garner support... but that is an unfortunate consequence of our systems of government... it is very hard to wipe the slate clean and start your tax code from scratch... so there is only so much we can actually simplify - or only in the short term manage it.)

I see why it has libertarian supporters, they believe in freedom, and this would ultimately free everyone from poverty and coercion of corporations. While making them dependents of the state...

There is another way of looking at this that hasn't been addressed. The world is becoming more and more automated. Resource extraction, transportation, and assembly are all becoming extremely automated. Even office jobs are streamlined and eliminated using computers. There is no sector that is not affected by automation using computers and robots.

What does this mean? It means that the traditional way of looking at work doesn't make sense. There is this idea that above all else people should work. But suppose the economy of the future doesn't have space for many workers? Then basic income will not only serve as financial support to keep people out of poverty, it will become the driver of the economy.

In my limited knowledge of it, I'd be game to try it out. Lol
I would wonder if the Canadian government could work it though.

@Meriosvo

we need resource capital too increase drastically to maintain the current trends with mechanization.

if we don't we're going to have a huge crash in the tech sectors, and a ton of these computer science majors are going to be out of a job.

robotization is good, but there's a long run aggregate potential that once we exceed: we're overvaluing our own costs. That never ends well. Traditional models still apply, just we're having trouble finding the correct multiplier on labor.

check the labor cost index: steady increase for decades. Bad news for small businesses, and not even good news for big ones.

People forget: machines use energy, and machines extract energy. This cycle most new-age economists see as perpetual, but a more realistic approach is that resources aren't unlimited, and our resource threshold is not rising fast enough to match energy costs. if this doesn't change, we're going to see a huge demechanization in industries, many failing, and a LARGE demand for human labor.

We have all types here. There are young players and older players. When you are young, if you are not liberal you have no heart; When you are older, if you are not conservative, you have no brain.' - Churchill. But we agree that 'playing Diplomacy is where its at'.

The problem that I have with Socialism and Income transfer payments it that it requires the spending of other peoples money. How would you like it if i took your wallet from you, removed half of your money, and then spent it for you in the manner that I decided.

If you think it is okay, lets meet for lunch. You are buying, of course.

@ CAPTBrad: Let's have a discussion. What makes it "your" money?

What is money? One thought that it serves as a store of value for trade. If I have something for trade that you cannot use but someone else can I can exchange 'money' with them. The 'money' then serves me as a way to trade with you in the future if you are willing to accept it. What you maybe asking is a more 'spiritual' question of gifts and talents that are given to some and not others. I may have a gift such as an ability to turn wood into chairs. Thus I can then market my efforts for a living. But, if there is no wood for me then I cannot.

How far are you willing to 'discuss' this point; and are you taking me out to lunch?

Indeed I am asking a more, in your words, spiritual question. Even if there is some wood for you to make into chairs, whose wood is it?

Anarchy is promoted by the 'heartless' and 'untalented'. It is easy to destroy. It take hard and earnest effort, talent and care to create and build.

@Jamiet99uk

if you put in labor, you should get as much as you've given.

John Smith: "you don't work, you don't eat"

there's no room for freeloaders. the irony with the colony was that charity was allowed, but not forced. if someone COULDNT work, it was up to his family to help him out.

I in no way like the family structure: but fro, an economic perspective, it was ingenious.

your welfare was your family. you got sick, they worked for you. you get too old: they work for you. just as everyday of your life you worked for someone else. constant exacting perpetual welfare.

you didn't have kids: you weren't contributing to society, so they didn't care if you died or whatever. Nowadays adoption is easy enough: kids need homes.

Your 'money' only has any value because our society agrees it does. If we all decided to stop trading in _Insert_your_currency_here_ you would have lost all the value and yet no-one would have taken anything from you.

That is to say, your 'money' only exists because we live in a society with agreed rules.

We are allowed to change these rules based on what we think is appropriate for our society. Given the current changes, and expected future changes (RE: " The world is becoming more and more automated. Resource extraction, transportation, and assembly are all becoming extremely automated. Even office jobs are streamlined and eliminated using computers. There is no sector that is not affected by automation using computers and robots." ) I think it is MORE than reasonable to consider this as a desirable change.

@jamiet99uk

NO NO NO!

wood used for chairs is a question of LAND. (economic terms: resources)

we're talking about money, I.E. a resulting value measuring tool of human LABOR

don't try to that bait and switch on him

@CAPT Brad

i got your back

I am fully aware of the spiritual question. I agree that those who are given much are expected to share with others who have less. Still, that compulsion to do is from a "Higher Power" (i will refrain from naming the HP for now). It is not from any government or temporal power. It cannot be coerced. It must be a free choice in response to the generosity from that HP.

@orathaic

hahaha it's not JUST society: it's gov't.

money is legally viable for taxes, so as long as you want the Protection and Benefits: WATER, ELECTRICITY, POLICE, EDUCATION

then money will work.

if you want to make some bitch ass commune: go for it. shit in buckets and die from Strep. go for it