Social Experiment; A few dozen Oakland residents to get $2,000 per month, no strings, for a year.

FruitOfTheVale

Superstar
Joined
May 30, 2015
Messages
6,358
Reputation
4,098
Daps
17,467
There isn't going to be any "lifting people out of poverty". Those days are done. The wealth disparity will just widen until the market explodes and 99.99% of the population is lower class.

You can't implement significant tax cuts without fukking up the budget and blowing up bonds. You can't hike up taxes to redistribute wealth to the serfs without either causing civil unrest, or inflation that would lead to civil unrest. And you can't reneg on trade deals to bring jobs home without inciting revolutions abroad and destabilizing foreign "allies".

This, like our 2016 election, is just happy sunshine shyt being sold to poor people who don't know any better for votes. Oh there will be socialism, but it is not going to be the type of Nordic finger up our ass bicycling through the park socialism they are telling you about at the community center.

Bruh taxes aren't being redistributed to the public in any real way in the vast majority of the states in 2016, none of these Forbes 500 companies and other entities dominating the economy are paying their fair share. Most of these companies are being subsidized by taxpayers for the "privilege" of them headquartering in America while half of their labor is exported to Mexico/PRC/India/etc. They lobby every two years for lower taxes and use loopholes to avoid the majority of the taxes they already owe.

Our public infrastructure in California is being gutted in favor of funding an actual serf economy: prison labor. Foreign nationals are benefiting more from our state education and home ownership programs than native Californians are. Literally almost half of the state (Central California) is in entrenched poverty with no relief on the political agenda whatsoever outside of HSR (High Speed Rail) and even that is likely going to be priced out of the budget of the majority of the people it should help. The system as it is is not working.
 

yyy

All Star
Joined
Jan 27, 2015
Messages
990
Reputation
1,130
Daps
4,808
Only in America. Year after year corporations get money from the government and no one bats an eye. Say that you should give money to the poor and everyone goes crazy. This idea has been around for a very long time. It has many different iterations. Basic minimum income - Basic income - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia, negative income tax -
Negative income tax - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia and a couple others. Undergirding the entire idea are two basic premises: 1) That the individual is better at maximizing their utility and making decisions for themselves than the government is and 2) It turns poor people into consumers which will lead to them having a voice in the economy. While there will always be a strong emotional reaction against giving poor people money, the fact remains that this might be the best way to alleviate/mitigate poverty. It's not like our country hasn't thrown money at this issue before...Why couldn't $130 million transform one of Baltimore's poorest places ... All this amounts to is a different approach.

And people need to stop with the strawmen. No one said this is a perfect solution. But the fact that people are against even a small scale experiment to determine the effectiveness tells you how tough this argument will be. The Cats in here who are against would be against it even if the results from this experiment were promising. Regardless, this is a real policy. Instead of welfare, and snap, and food stamps people would get this. They would spend the money how they like and, hopefully, it would allow the free market to work just like it does everywhere else. It almost happened in the late 60s but it never materialized.

How Richard Nixon Almost Gave America a Basic Income (and Why We Should Do It Now)
Guaranteed income’s moment in the sun | Remapping Debate
To meet the challenge of “assur[ing] basic economic security for all Americans,” we need to make “cash payments to all members of the population with income needs.” So recommended a presidential commission in its 1969 report, “Poverty Amid Plenty: The American Paradox.” A family of four, for example, would receive a base income of $2,400 per year ($15,182 in 2013 dollars), with continued support for earnings up to $4,800 per year ($30,365 in 2013 dollars). Commissioners saw this as a “practical program” that could be passed by Congress quickly. (They estimated that the bill for the program would run to $6 billion a year, or $37.9 billion in 2013 dollars, a sum they considered a “relatively low dollar cost.”) In the longer run, they recommended “that benefit levels be raised as rapidly as is practical and possible in the future.”

“Among policy folks, academics, and activists…there was consensus across the political spectrum that [guaranteed annual income] was a pretty good idea.”
— Brian Steensland, Indiana University

As to whether people should be required to work to receive this income, the commission said “no.” Though “any program which provides income without work may have some effect on labor force participation,” such disincentive effects would not be serious, they suggested. Moreover, to the extent that “secondary family workers” or the elderly reduced work effort, such changes “may be desirable.”

In sum, the President’s Commission proposed that the United States adopt a version of a “guaranteed annual income” (GAI) — a method of ensuring economic security and dignity by means of the Federal Government providing money to any individual or family whose income falls below a certain floor, irrespective of whether the circumstance occured because of low wages, unemployment, prolonged illness, or disability. The commission came to this solution after concluding that forces beyond an individual’s control — not “some personal failing” — induced poverty. Thus, “the problem…must be dealt with by the Federal Government.”

The report’s solution may seem radical today, but it was part of a range of proposals in the 1960s and early 1970s that accepted the idea that a GAI would be an appropriate and effective way for the country to meet its obligations to citizens living in poverty. A year and a half earlier, in May 1968, over 1,000 university economists signed a letter supporting a GAI, and a similar proposal had also been floated by a panel of business leaders appointed by New York Governor Nelson Rockefeller.

The commission that made the 1969 proposal wasn’t even the first “President’s Commission” to recommend a GAI: the 1968 report of the “National Advisory Commission on Civil Disorder” (the Kerner Commission) beat them to the punch. And the 1969 commission proposal came five months after the Nixon Administration released its own, smaller-scale GAI proposal. In 1970, President Nixon’s version of a GAI passed the House of Representatives by a margin of 88 votes.
This is a very real idea. The only problem is that in America we have gone back to the belief that being poor is a pathological sickness. If people once again start to believe that the major difference between the guy from the rich well-off suburb and the guy born in the inner city is where they are born rather than their character something like this may have a chance of actually happenening.
 

MegaTronBomb!

Power is in my hair nikka
Joined
May 1, 2012
Messages
13,591
Reputation
2,241
Daps
41,550
Reppin
From The Westside With Love
I see whats going on here...Who says the people they gave the money to were black?
Maybe just maybe they were white or mexican I mean trailer-parks are still around right? :mjlol:

Who said anything about Black people?

Have you ever been to Oakland? There are plenty of poor whites and latinos there.
 

FruitOfTheVale

Superstar
Joined
May 30, 2015
Messages
6,358
Reputation
4,098
Daps
17,467
Who said anything about Black people?

Have you ever been to Oakland? There are plenty of poor whites and latinos there.

A lot of poor asians as well

The main disconnect in this thread though is that a lot of people posting here are not familiar with the cost of living in Oakland and how wildly different it is from where most of them are from.
 

MegaTronBomb!

Power is in my hair nikka
Joined
May 1, 2012
Messages
13,591
Reputation
2,241
Daps
41,550
Reppin
From The Westside With Love
I like the idea, I just hope people are smart with the money

Smart is subjective to the living conditions someone is in.

For some: Smart may be buying a car ( or better car) to give themselves the ability to expand their job search radius.

For others: Smart may be paying their past due bills off/down and getting out of the trap of predatory lending.


IMO, people who'd use that money to finance their own education or to start a communal project like a garden or start a business will be the rare exceptions.

But those rare exceptions will be deemed the only ones who did the "right/smart" thing with the money.
 

yyy

All Star
Joined
Jan 27, 2015
Messages
990
Reputation
1,130
Daps
4,808
There isn't going to be any "lifting people out of poverty". Those days are done. The wealth disparity will just widen until the market explodes and 99.99% of the population is lower class.

You can't implement significant tax cuts without fukking up the budget and blowing up bonds. You can't hike up taxes to redistribute wealth to the serfs without either causing civil unrest, or inflation that would lead to civil unrest. And you can't reneg on trade deals to bring jobs home without inciting revolutions abroad and destabilizing foreign "allies".

This, like our 2016 election, is just happy sunshine shyt being sold to poor people who don't know any better for votes. Oh there will be socialism, but it is not going to be the type of Nordic finger up our ass bicycling through the park socialism they are telling you about at the community center.
You are out of touch with reality.
Not Just the 1%: The Upper Middle Class Is Larger and Richer Than Ever
I'm going to be honest, I was an economics major in college and I have no clue what you are talking about. The 99.99% argument is easily refuted by the Wall Street Journal article. The real truth is that we have a growing educated elite who are more than willing to listen to well-reasoned arguments about how to deal with poverty. Also, please do not conflate poverty and economic inequality. They are two different things.

Thirdly, your use of the word serfs makes no sense in this context. That term harkens back to the era of feudalism in Europe.

Fourthly, this article has nothing to do with trade deals. I have no idea why you brought that up. The inner cities were impoverished long before globalization started to gain momentum. Trade deals more so have an impact on blue-collar manufacturing towns/cities who are losing jobs rather than poor minorities in inner cities.

Lastly, I would be very interested to hear what you recommend our country do going forward. Because it sounds like you are advising us to take the worse path of all, the same path we are on now. As much as you may not want to admit it, doing nothing is in fact, doing something and staying on the same path when you know an impending collision is inevitable is the definition of insanity. Reminds me of a line from Lord of the Rings,
Faramir: Mithrandir! They broke through our defenses! They've taken the bridge and the west bank. Battalions of Orcs are crossing the river.
Irolas: It is as the Lord Denethor predicted. Long has he forseen this doom.
Gandalf: Forseen and done nothing!
 

blackzeus

Superstar
Joined
May 19, 2012
Messages
21,666
Reputation
2,825
Daps
43,529
Instead of giving them money, why not give them free education/skills training

Because it's $2K/month is more valuable than learning a relevant, in-demand skill that can provide them a stable income :troll: Now come give white daddy a hug Lil' Larry :smugfavre:
 

AITheAnswerAI

Ethereous one
Supporter
Joined
May 11, 2012
Messages
16,969
Reputation
2,630
Daps
51,337
"Social experiment" = Watch them fukk the money off



Hopefully they're practical with the dough.
 

Red Shield

Global Domination
Joined
Dec 17, 2013
Messages
21,211
Reputation
2,427
Daps
47,168
Reppin
.0001%
Helicopter money and then hyperinflation and then war or an economic reset. Lol@ "basic income"


Don't think there will be helicopter money or hyperinflation...


Then this shyt goes straight to massive economic contraction/collapse followed right by the big one. The USA gets rolled in 60minutes






Yall need to get on this WW3set. Taking members whether yall wanna join or not :WWar3:
 

jwonder

Superstar
Joined
Aug 30, 2014
Messages
24,948
Reputation
-1,350
Daps
37,424
Reppin
DADE County
Instead of giving them money, why not give them free education/skills training
Exactly. Giving money is a horrible idea to poverty stricken people. A lot of the mentally is damaged because they have no formal education or training. Most especially in the finance department. This is a terrible idea. To be 100, most of the recipients will spend it on Jordans, rims, and other insignificant shyt.
 

Jimi Swagger

I say whatever I think should be said
Supporter
Joined
Jan 25, 2015
Messages
4,365
Reputation
-1,340
Daps
6,058
Reppin
Turtle Island to DXB
Didn't read the article I just know if my shyt boughetto relatives in Richmond are in the study, that money will be gone yesterday on stereotypical nikka shyt.
 

zerozero

Superstar
Joined
May 6, 2012
Messages
6,866
Reputation
1,240
Daps
13,479
You guys are looking at it from a social pathology perspective

Y Combinator is looking at it from an economic perspective

The view of the main guy funding this is that because technology is accelerating at some point there won't be enough well paying jobs for everyone

Read his views directly: Basic Income

I’m fairly confident that at some point in the future, as technology continues to eliminate traditional jobs and massive new wealth gets created, we’re going to see some version of this at a national scale.

So it would be good to answer some of the theoretical questions now. Do people sit around and play video games, or do they create new things? Are people happy and fulfilled? Do people, without the fear of not being able to eat, accomplish far more and benefit society far more? And do recipients, on the whole, create more economic value than they receive? (Questions about how a program like this would affect overall cost of living are beyond our scope, but obviously important.)

50 years from now, I think it will seem ridiculous that we used fear of not being able to eat as a way to motivate people. I also think that it’s impossible to truly have equality of opportunity without some version of guaranteed income. And I think that, combined with innovation driving down the cost of having a great life, by doing something like this we could eventually make real progress towards eliminating poverty.
 

Deutsche Bank

Some Of My Partners Dope Fiends Ha
Joined
Nov 15, 2015
Messages
2,097
Reputation
-870
Daps
3,770
Reppin
Hookers & Blow
Don't think there will be helicopter money or hyperinflation...


Then this shyt goes straight to massive economic contraction/collapse followed right by the big one. The USA gets rolled in 60minutes






Yall need to get on this WW3set. Taking members whether yall wanna join or not :WWar3:
On Friday, first thing came out of the Fed and the ECB was backstopping markets with liquidity, and all rate hikes are off the table now, replaced with an increasing prospect of rate cuts. They knew good and goddamn well that only the dumbest of muppet ass true believers think the algos are not subsidized, and that there was any chance of a July hike.

The CB's will do their helicopter money routine during the contraction, like putting Band-Aids on bulletwounds. Then that will lead to the big one. There will be a big one before the big one that everyone will think is the big one, but it will be the panic after the little big one that will accelerate the economy directly into the big one.

If they were smart, they would let civil unrest in a bullshyt country due to the big one lead to another Pearl Harbor-like event, then let WWIII start. I'd sooner bet that Europe gets rolled first, seeing as how they were forced to take in all them dirty ass refugees. If we were taking millions of those fukkers in, then I'd be sitting in Cuba New Zealand here like :merchant:.
 
Top