The Universal Basic Income
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
24-09-2015, 04:05 AM
RE: The Universal Basic Income
(24-09-2015 03:47 AM)morondog Wrote:  In the short term I understand subverting things so that you become massively rich. In the long term... not at all. If you wreck the world, how will your descendants fare? I think therefore that being obscenely wealthy - I have no problem with wealth per se, just... such unequal wealth that it's obscene - is inherently selfish.

Shareholders, and the profits they desire, are as shortsighted as a mayfly in mating season... Dodgy

[Image: E3WvRwZ.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
24-09-2015, 05:57 AM
RE: The Universal Basic Income
(23-09-2015 03:42 PM)cjlr Wrote:  
(23-09-2015 01:23 PM)onlinebiker Wrote:  You have to remember - our entire economic system is built upon PERCEPTION rather than anything quantitative --- as it was, when we were on the "gold standard".

With a gold standard - there is a solid correlation between two things - the reserves of precious metals - and the amount of paper dollars printed.

... that's still based on perception. The value assigned to various bits of shiny metals is just as made-up as the value assigned to entirely abstract systems of exchange.

(23-09-2015 01:23 PM)onlinebiker Wrote:  Once we went off the gold standard - it's all a game of perception -- what people THINK a dollar is worth -- and they tend to make the judgement against certain things that "seem" to have a stable price --- the cost of a loaf of bread, a gallon of milk -- or what a minimum wage earner takes in per hour.

It's a doomed system of course. It WILL eventually implode.

Like commodity money, including the various shades of metallism, has done, repeatedly, throughout history?

Value is a construct. It's not a fact of nature.

Not quite --- silver and gold will ALWAYS have SOME value - as they're used in several industries -- not to mention jewelry.....

"Metallism"? -- OK -- nice word invention -- it probably should be a real word -- it is very descriptive. However -- it didn't implode -- it was ran into the ground by greed and corruption. There was too much profit to be made by allowing banks to "coin money" -- which they do.....

At one time a bank could only loan as much as they had in assets.... That's changed. At one time I know they could loan 10 dollars for every 1 they had in assets -- and I've heard it's changed a couple times since. I'm not sure what the lending to asset ratio is now -- but it's more than 10 to 1.

.......................................

The difference between prayer and masturbation - is when a guy is through masturbating - he has something to show for his efforts.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
24-09-2015, 08:10 AM
RE: The Universal Basic Income
(24-09-2015 05:57 AM)onlinebiker Wrote:  Not quite --- silver and gold will ALWAYS have SOME value - as they're used in several industries -- not to mention jewelry.....

That's a metal's commodity value - not that that isn't itself a matter of context and perception! But money is not a commodity.
(historically, everything from cows to cowries has been used as currency or currency backing - perception of value is the only thing that matters)

(24-09-2015 05:57 AM)onlinebiker Wrote:  "Metallism"? -- OK -- nice word invention -- it probably should be a real word -- it is very descriptive. However -- it didn't implode -- it was ran into the ground by greed and corruption. There was too much profit to be made by allowing banks to "coin money" -- which they do.....

I didn't invent it!

But no, economic collapses have always occurred, and even if you're just blaming "greed and corruption" (isn't that what you said crashes fiat currencies anyway?) that doesn't mean it didn't happen. Pretending shiny rocks have intrinsic value beyond social consensus doesn't fix that.

If there's one thing economists agree on, it's that they never agree on anything. But if there are two things...

(24-09-2015 05:57 AM)onlinebiker Wrote:  At one time a bank could only loan as much as they had in assets.... That's changed. At one time I know they could loan 10 dollars for every 1 they had in assets -- and I've heard it's changed a couple times since. I'm not sure what the lending to asset ratio is now -- but it's more than 10 to 1.

That was never true, though. Literally never.

Fractional reserve lending has been standard practice - de facto if not de jure, not that there were regulations on the matter for most of history - since Roman times. If it hadn't been true then bank runs would have been impossible!

... this is my signature!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes cjlr's post
24-09-2015, 08:18 AM
RE: The Universal Basic Income
(24-09-2015 01:21 AM)Heywood Jahblome Wrote:  
(23-09-2015 03:31 PM)cjlr Wrote:  Energy is finite at human scales.

If energy consumption per capita continues to increase exponentially - and most of the spitballing ideas in this thread and elsewhere require it to - then that becomes the bottleneck.

Energy has only gotten cheaper as humans have gotten more technological.

Price per unit energy.

This ignores completely the concurrent exponential increase in energy consumption per individual.

(24-09-2015 01:21 AM)Heywood Jahblome Wrote:  I suspect this trend will continue. 100,000 years ago how many man hours did it take to gather the energy to have a night long campfire? How many many hours does it take today to accumulate the same amount energy to produce the same amount of BTUs?

Fusion and batteries with energy densities equivalent to gasoline are coming. Energy is going to get cheaper and cheaper in the foreseeable future I predict.

"Foreseeable future". Meaning what, precisely?

The average citizen of the developed world consumes far more than one person's share of the current global energy budget. You're right in saying production technologies will improve - and storage, albeit that no battery can ever be completely efficient - but that isn't the issue. The issue is how the two curves compare with each other.

If production triples and demand quadruples, that's rather going to lead to increased pricing, even if not on a strict per-unit basis.

... this is my signature!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like cjlr's post
Post Reply
Forum Jump: