Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Strategies & Market Trends : 2026 TeoTwawKi ... 2032 Darkest Interregnum -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Cogito Ergo Sum who wrote (196897)	3/3/2023 6:26:08 PM
From: sense	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 217764

If you see government as the obvious / best / only solution to every problem... And fail to see... blind yourself to... how the government usually creates or enlarges problems vs solve them. Fail to see how the "goals" on offer as being addressed... are misdirection in what is truly intended ? Then, being a socialist would make sense. Realism prevents rational people from buying any form of utopianism as offering real solutions. Selling pipe dreams works out well on Madison Avenue... almost nowhere else. UBI is a worthy topic to discuss... for that reason above, and others... But, why don't the welfare systems we have now ever work to "fix" the problems they address ? (Don't know, don't care, look away... na na na na na na...?) Perhaps... they intend to create and capture a dependent class... who are not intended to escape ? The "efficiency" of UBI removes an excess in accumulation of useless bureaucracy... but, doesn't do anything to prevent more of the same as above ? But, the UBI argument is generally presented in context of reality... entirely bass ackwards... We already have "UBI"... ? All of the fiat in existence... is printed (or mouse clicked) into existence... and, GIVEN to someone... All UBI is (said to be) advocating... is changing who its given to... so that businesses (including banks ?) will have to compete for use of your money... instead of making themselves the custodians of your share of that money that is already being issued "for you"... all without telling you... and without there being any accountability for it, ever... Still just an argument in how to re-jigger the books in socialism... re-balancing accounts between "communist" leaning and "national socialist" leaning brands... without any consideration of any of the (better) alternatives... or any of those issues that are outside consideration, as held beyond, or held back from, what is (said to be) proposed ? The shiny object on offer... versus the fine print in what that contract actually is saying ? The UBI arguments... all wrongly assume... first, that it can be implemented... without any political consequences... cutting out the corporates and banks from "control over it" or from "getting their share"... (all a political impossibility... and in the degree allowed... meaning you didn't get or read the fine print properly)... and, second, that it can be implemented without any meaningful practical consequences... as, say, in result of systemic impacts of shifting the allocations of $ and flows... from people who do know how money works... and people who don't ? Done "properly"... the UBI would consist of "citizenship" being tied to allocations... with each citizen owning a share of "the issuing authority"... and receiving "dividends" tied to the profits earned by the lending of, or the share issuance as a dividend issued as a dilution of the stock of money... to enlarge the # in outstanding, while keeping the proportional ownership the same... And, then, good luck figuring out how to resolve all the resulting inequities... and prevent "theft of pie"...