stazz1

Kuwait dished out the grant for only a year, right? That's different than adding new money to the supply every year.

Thanks for providing data, I'm always interested in taking a look. Everything I have read so far further supports my claims in my original post.

For one, the example in Mexico only gives the fund to a small portion of the population, which is consistent with PGI, and inconsistent with UBI. "PGI is welfare" is an oversimplification in my opinion, that's like saying this beet and poppyseed salad is food, yes it's true, but the nuance and most of the useful information is lost.

So again, the number of people being given the B.I. and the cyclicality of the grant have not been inspected thoroughly, but if problems emerge in isolation like the ones described, why would they not be exacerbated at scale. Most people think some sort of multiplier effect will cause advances across all disciplines, but putting fuel in every car whether empty or full is not the most efficient way to get the whole fleet going.

Do I think people should be working rather than getting BI? Not exactly -- my personal view is that automation will likely wipeout many jobs and humans will have to be more and more creative for employment. Do I think rich people who have factories and make money off of robot labor should also get UBI? No. Giving to the haves creates all these inflationary, distributionary issues effectively shooting UBI in its foot. At one point it was unclear, now it is obvious. I think that's how science works.

Kuwait is small and a 10% spike in food prices is probably a big deal, don't you agree? UBI for one year or a short term or a tiny population is not actual cyclically persistent-full population UBI. The leap between "I can whittle a chess piece out of wood" and "let's play all the grandmasters blindfolded" is quite a leap.

How often is your mind changed by a study?

There are 4 people out of 40 below the 3 apples/year mark and I served them in a PGI (progressive guaranteed income way). The inflation was 9 apples this year which means we minted 109 apples and had a 9% spike in commodity prices when we issue the UBI.

At Turnson's orchard, they also have 40 people, 4 below the 3 Apples/year mark, but they decided to give everybody a guaranteed income of 3 apples. They call it "UBI" and claim it will work wonders. Let's see: Turnson creates 120 new apples to cover the UBI on top of the 100 apples his orchard actually produces. The inflation is 2.4x so people who had 200 apples got another 3 apples, and ended up with the equivalent value of 84.5 apples. People who had 0 apples also got 3 and ended up with a grand equivalent buying power during commodity spikes of 1.25 apples.

At Turnson's orchard with UBI, the poorest of the poor ended up with 1.25 apples, and everybody else's currency devalued substantially.

At our orchard, with PGI, we were able to give apples to the poorest and neediest without destroying our currency's value or buying power. Inflation 9% during issuance of currency (See Kuwait in 2011 doing their UBI thing - tis one googles deep.) At Turnson's in this example, inflation is 2.4x during currency issuance and is supposed to even-out to some midpoint between 1.0 and 2.4x. 1.09 to 1.0 has the midline of 1.045 so there is more longterm inflation no matter what. How much depends on how important you think it is to devalue currency by giving some to everyone at the same time.

(Additionally, without an incentive to work, stay employed, or provide value to society, why would people not just accept their cheques and bail? Nobody in blind support of UBI seems to think there are freeloaders or slackers in the world)

The equation is pretty straightforward and there is a pretty graph here. https://pbs.twimg.com/media/EQTCmq0UwAAM7Ku?format=png

Choose a Climb-Out Bound and adjust the amounts accordingly.

The main criticism is that giving everyone money costs a lot more and will also cause an undue spike in commodity prices. The more rich people you give some of the BI to, the higher the spike in commodity prices, and therefore the needing people are hurt again. It's the same reason we do not give billionaires food stamps, because the cost is subsidized by the populous indirectly through tax collection. It's not magic, UBI will not somehow be immune to the way currency has worked for thousands of years, and an increase in supply of money will only hurt those who have little, so that needs to be minimized.

Earn 0: get 12k GPI Earn 10k: get 4k GPI Earn 20k: get 2k GPI Earn 30k: get 0 GPI

(for the example of a 24k cut-off bound)

For one, think about China back in the day when people all gave blood to the same vat, and then some contaminated blood caused some otherwise healthy people to get ungood diseases. Why collect first + distribute when there is cost in collection and cost in distribution? Just because I can move the fridge around my house all day does not mean it will not tire me out for other tasks. Same deal, money dries up in converting between "types" so it's not smart to Collect + Progressively Tax.

Minimize motion, that's how you close the inequality gap, not by adding more oxygen-exposed piping that can be funneled, embezzled, exploited, and ridiculed.

Compare: PGI means only some people get a monthly check for Basic Income, and its based on how much you earned (this year, last year) and you can future-withdraw from what you would get next year, take too much and you owe it. It's even smaller than the social security office and would actually close the inequality gap. If you consider the most naive argument: the absolute amount of paper is minimized, that might be a simpler way to approach how collect+distribute techniques lose a lot of velocity to friction. Trying UBI with Progressive Tax is also not the same because one is multiplication and one is linear addition. $1000 to someone wealthy is not going to move the needle, but for someone at the bottom of the barrel it will move the needle a great deal, maybe even multiple indicators will move for them at that point. Thus, money is not linearly equal, its value depends largely on how much you have already.

Reasons: +UBI Robs from the rich to give to the poor... and give back to the rich a little bit. "Billionaires will die without UBI." It's simply not good nor true to the intent of BI to give money to people who already have plenty. "But means testing will cost so much!" Actually means testing if you earn less than C.O.B is not very expensive, and giving UBI to everyone is very very expensive. Something like 6-12x more expensive. (PGI with C.O.B. of 24k would cost $800B annually, UBI would cost 3.6T)

+aside from giving to the rich for no good reason, UBI causes an increase in commodity prices anytime the fund is issued. This is like having a highway turn at 340* and being very incensed when people crash because they are going too fast. There is no way to avoid a spike in commodity prices when giving UBI out and especially when you give it out to everyone, why? because everyone getting more money devalues money (for a brief while). See: Supply of Money (M0, M1, M2...) and the Kuwait attempt at UBI from 2011. They blamed their ministers of commerce for the crashes on the 340* turn, of course.

+ Value Added Tax is not good to fund B.I. of any kind because it's likely that this "luxury tax" will hit a lot of the recipients of the B.I. The Roosevelt Institute did a study on a potential UBI to "grow the economy / gdp by 12% annually" which is cool to consider, but one of the key assumptions is that a funding method like a VAT would not hit the households getting UBI. Plus, their study does not do UBI, just B.I. of different tiers. If the VAT hits the consumers who get the B.I. then it's taking with the left hand what was just given with the right.

+ In short: Don't give back to the rich. Don't make a VAT that taxes the poor inadvertently (B2B vat is the only vat we could support then it seems). UBI would cause commodity spikes during currency issuance and that's unavoidable, but the amount of issuance is proportional to spikes so: Only give B.I. to people below a Climb-Out-Bound. Give them ( C-Earnings )/ 2 to incentivize their working out of poverty.

Example: Climb-out Bound 24,000. You earn 12k, the government gives you 24-12 = 6k, and now you're at 18k. The closer you climb out of poverty, the less you get, but you cannot get more than 12k, and if you work you'll make more than someone not working. Make sense?

Because what people fail to remember is the Federal reserve act of 1913 and its FEDERAL mandate that employment be kept at a running maximum (keep them ponies movin' raw hide). +Progressive Guaranteed Income does not violate the 1913 Federal Reserve Act, but actually works with it.

Most people don't use it this way, but to say it's impossible to secure e-mail is arrogant and not true

Depends on how substantial it is to your Minimum Remarkable Product. You need to make a skateboard, get it on the asphalt, and see how it does. Talk to users asap, but if you are concerned someone will hijack and it pump out more features, you need more domain-specific knowledge that will render that infeasible/impossible. Additional features down the line, if you can keep their needs in mind during the early phases, you may be able to tease apart things that would otherwise lead to "Complected" circumstances (two things tied together that do not need to be). Building a team is harder than building an application, I wouldn't consider it lightly as a solution to an incomplete product. If you're going to build a skyscraper, you need a plan from day one, but you also need people who can help you work on the concrete floor and foundation, not too many window decorators quite yet. Basically you must weigh out the odds. Will someone release before you? (10-80%) Will someone release after you but out-compete you on features? (25%) Will someone attempt to make a competition app if yours hits the market first (5% likely) Will someone else attempt to hit the market first if no app is there (95%)

Find the minimal set of features that customers will pay you for and use that as your first comet to reach. Your overall strategy should be to make a banger product, and you don't know what that looks like until you put a plank in the room and say "hey what do you think of this couch" and someone else says "that's a couch?!" It's the way to making a perfect couch, a perfect piece of furniture, that is not predictable and not exactly teach-able. As long as you are creating a product in a market with little to no competition you are fine, but if there is a lot of competition, why are you fighting for a tiny slice of a big pie when you could have a huge slice of a pie elsewhere that can grow? Recommend watching videos about Peter Thiel's Zero to One.

Also, some reddit makes it seem like a Titanium pin in his shoulder was to blame: https://www.reddit.com/r/techsupport/comments/2rsivw/monitor...

(Infinity of) Continuum Hello and, with you again, rolling some hopefully helpful thoughts on the most inscrutable but also most important discipline i've come across in all my days, now I'd like to pivot and speak about the Continuum and Focus.

The continuum is easy enough to comprehend. People say the material world yields material causes and effects. The mental world is made of mental causes and results in mental effects. Prior moments of world are made of world, prior moments of mind are made of mind. We can explore this idea more deeply, but fundamentally we are seeking the well body of breathing and good resonance that pervades our body-psychic system and is largely influenced by the quality of our thoughts, attitudes, health, and degrees of flow of the body fluids and winds. Reeling back a bit consider infinite time. Infinite time with infinite world still does not explain where mind comes from. On the other end, if mind creates mind, then mind is foremost, and might in some way magnetically find and forge environs in its process of grasping and becoming. Clinging, grasping, and later on becoming are just a couple of the links in the causal chain known as the twelve nidanas. It is this causal sequence that we are trying to somehow halt or arrest, if only for an instantaneous moment of focus, because once the link is clearly allowed to melt the chain is a lot less strong.

That's a lot.

Focus is very fundamental, and until you can focus on the dance of breath and body (your breath is a companion for life), just focus on a dot on the ground or the wall for a while. Try and actually keep it in focus. This should expose the vibratory nature of the universe immediately. Duratable focus is how we are going to illuminate the dark corners or clouds of in-conciseness. Single-pointed-precision or Single-pointed-concentration is therefore key for a diligent and thorough investigation into reality's qualities and properties (assuming it has some we can name or identify) and it must be undertaken/done with a positive attitude, a chipper or cheerful countenance.

Short of that, "meditation" can be done to help focus by a classical meditation where one separates black and white stones. Black stones for an unsavory thought that does not benefit oneself or all sentience / sentient beings / community, and light colored stones to indicate a wholesome thought or helpful thought to all sentience / sentient beings / community. This lets one learn how to observe ones mind without being too rigid about what is being thought. In general, the mind wants to be your friend, help you focus, and it can take hints. Focus training could also be something like staring at particular points for ~15 second periods and trying to hold them perfectly in focus. You may find it to be impossible - vibratory nature.

Related way to keep your ocular muscles healthy: take about 2-3 minutes in a day to adjust your eyeballs' focal points by looking at near trees, near homes, near phenomena, then gradually increase the distance, trying to clearly focus on new objects at deeper and farther distances. Finally, work your way back on the same chain of objects. Small, frequent, and useful techniques will go far. Still, making time to sit and let the emotional wattage of daily life dissipate through the slightly enlarged vessel of quietude-and-sensory-withdrawn-mind will help immensely. Again, frequency preferable to intensity.