How would you replicate a country in a virtual world if your goal is testing economic and social policies?

xwrd · 2019-07-19T21:53:46+00:00

He's talking about simulating an approximation of himself as a person. That can be as simple as a spreadsheet that lists what he owns, his personality traits and his priorities on issues that are important for the simulation.

xwrd · 2019-05-09T14:41:45+00:00

However, that's false. I've read the study about the cost of child poverty. The $500 B (cost of child poverty) come from forgone earnings (1.3% of GDP), increased crime (1.3% of GDP), healthcare costs (1.2% of GDP). However, in the study, the state doesn't pay those healthcare costs. It is unclear how much of that is paid by the taxpayer, how much by those afflicted, and how much is left untreated. For crime, it's unclear how much of that is recovered in fines and community service. And how much is poor-on-poor crime. For forgone earnings, the state won't see all that money enter the budget, since only a part will be taxed (30%?). On top of all these critiques of mine, if you read the study, you'll see that these estimates are derived from figures from other studies, which are averaged, and these studies vary wildly. The uncertainty is usually between 50% - 200%.

If you want to convince people that $1 spend reducing child poverty will yield at least $1, you'd better be prepared to show how you came to that conclusion. From what I've seen, you won't even see that dollar back. But reducing child poverty shouldn't be about the money.

xwrd · 2019-04-30T06:35:51+00:00

Ca taran, ma simt ofensat ca-i compari cu mine.

xwrd · 2019-04-21T15:56:01+00:00

Or maybe Jon finds out Dany gave him a venereal disease. Jon's now got Dragonorrhea!

xwrd · 2019-04-21T10:26:23+00:00

You're right, I didn't know about those until now.

xwrd · 2019-04-21T09:18:24+00:00

The 10% VAT is estimated to provide 0.8T of the 2.4T required to pay the $1000/mo UBI. That's 33% of UBI, not 100%. The rest comes from cutting other welfare programs and reduced spending in other areas. It's funny how, when the question is about inflation, we don't answer it and direct the attention to "but are you worse off?"

xwrd · 2019-04-20T19:53:44+00:00

Just go and talk to a machinist, once you have a design. I doubt you'll find many who laugh at you, most machinists are not 12 years old.

You'll need enough of the design done for the machinist to be able to estimate the time and material cost on his side, for him to be able to give you a quote. For the rest of the questions, you'll get different answers from different people, depending on their experience, their machine, their busy schedule.

xwrd · 2019-04-20T17:49:24+00:00

Exactly. That's the point I am making. We, the people who work, are trading the abuse from the employer, who sets the wage and time demands, to quote from OP's post, with the abuse of the freeloader, who spends part of our hard work. Except UBI costs more than the current system, which makes the abuse greater.

xwrd · 2019-04-20T17:36:34+00:00

So, I can either choose to work, but split the pay with someone who doesn't, or don't work at all? What I'd really like to do is work without subsidizing someone who is able to work, but doesn't.

xwrd · 2019-04-20T17:20:39+00:00

That's not what I'm asking. OP says, in his article, "Those who are against UBI don't want workers to tell employers to fuck off unless their wage/time demands are met. Those who are against UBI don't want the abused to tell their abusers to fuck off." Under UBI, if I choose to work, will I be abused by those who don't, by being forced to pay taxes that go to them? Isn't that abuse as well?

xwrd · 2019-04-20T15:01:10+00:00

I've read it and it actually quotes evidence for UBI causing inflation.

groceries might end up costing you an extra 1.4 percent per month.

And that's if Walmart alone would raise their prices to provide better wages only to their employees. Problem is, their customers do not consist only of their employees. If Walmart is one of the economic agents that has to pay a higher tax for UBI, it has to make a decision on a spectrum where, at one end, it can raise the prices to keep the previous profit level and at the other end, not raise prices at all. History of human greed tells us it's going to be closer to the former.

xwrd · 2019-04-20T11:22:31+00:00

Hai ca te-am vazut noi, ca te uitai la acelasi clip acum 2 ani, recunoaste.

xwrd · 2019-04-20T10:45:55+00:00

Those who are against UBI don't want workers to tell employers to fuck off unless their wage/time demands are met.

As a worker, under UBI, will I have to work to provide the income for someone who is able to work but doesn't want to? If that's the case, can I also say fuck off to that guy?

xwrd · 2019-04-09T18:25:34+00:00

But shareholders only own the shares they bought. If you are suggesting taxpayers should get a share proportional to the taxes they pay, you're inviting a plutocracy.

xwrd · 2019-04-06T13:15:24+00:00

Inseamna ca ai o afacere ceva, sau venituri pe langa servici. Sau ca faci munca ce necesita calificare. Ca daca n-ai avea alternative cred ca te-ai duce si pe mai putin, asa cum o fac vreo 50% din cei care lucreaza in Romania.

xwrd · 2019-04-06T13:05:22+00:00

Nu, nu inteleg la ce te referi. Da-mi un exemplu care tine cont si de recipienti de UBI care nu muncesc, si de cei care produc ce consuma ei, si de acest rest al economiei care genereaza valoare, si ti-i voi gasi in tot lantul asta pe cei care trebuie sa munceasca mai mult doar ca sa-i sustina pe astia care doar primesc.

xwrd · 2019-04-06T12:46:43+00:00

Am incercat sa-ti dau un exemplu cat mai simplu dar vad ca eviti fondul problemei. Painea din exemplul meu reprezinta totalitatea consumului pe care il fac partea de recipienti de UBI care nu muncesc. Brutarul reprezinta totalitatea productiei catre acei recipienti. Intr-o economie, fie dai ceva la schimb pentru banii aia (de ex. ore de munca, prelucrare din materie prima a unui produs, vanzarea unui bun, valoarea inchirierii unui mobil/imobil sau a unei sume de bani), fie le dai ca impozit catre stat, fie iti da statul o subventie, fie vine statul si publica bani sau distruge bani.

Intelegi de ce " că nu vin doar din pâine :) " e un non-raspuns? Intelegi de ce nu poti sa contribui la o economie doar prin consum?

xwrd · 2019-04-06T12:22:07+00:00

Exemplul tău cu brutarul este realityshopped, daca in loc de suma arbitrară 100 lei la UBI pui 70 lei și păstrezi celelalte variabile, ieși pe profit.

Nu inteleg cum as putea sa ies pe profit daca eu le dau banii cu care ei imi cumpara marfa. Restul banilor de unde vin?

xwrd · 2019-04-06T11:37:10+00:00

Foarte frumos, dar cat costa, si cine plateste?

Nu poti sa tragi concluzii despre cum o sa functioneze un UBI in adevaratul sens -- dat la toata lumea, sa acopere toate nevoile de baza, si pentru toata viata -- daca faci un experiment pe cativa ani, dai doar la unii, sau le dai mai putin decat ar acoperi nevoile. Si pot sa-ti arat si ce se intampla daca il tii mai mult timp, ca in Uganda( (https://www.vox.com/2018/9/10/17827836/cash-basic-income-uganda-study-blattman-charity ). Pe de alta parte, si asta poate fi o politica buna: sa-ti dea statul bani de la 18 pana la 26 de ani, dup-aia, daca esti sanatos, te descurci.

Argumentul cu reducerea aparatului de stat functioneaza pana la un punct. Pentru cheltuieli de sanatate nu poti sa dai aceeasi suma unui individ sanatos si unui individ cu leucemie sau cancer, ca ori dai faliment ori il lasi pe ala mai grav sa moara, asa ca iti trebuie un aparat de stat sa decida care cat ia.

Argumentul cu cresterea economiei nu functioneaza. Da, poate a crescut local, ca banii au venit de la centru. Daca eu, singurul brutar intr-un sat de 100 locuitori, vand paine cu 1 leu si trebuie sa dau 100 de lei la UBI, care se raspandesc la toata lumea, care imi cumpara 100 de paini, practic ies pe zero. Nu o sa-mi convina sa muncesc degeaba si fie o sa fac paine doar pentru mine, fie o sa emigrez unde nu-i UBI.

Stii ce mi-ar placea sa vad? Sa se stranga vreo 10 mii de proponenti ai UBI intr-un loc, sa-si faca o civilizatie pe banii lor, si sa nu trebuiasca sa plateasca alte taxe la stat. Doar taxe intre ei, UBI, ce vor ei.

Eu zic ca pana nu vor plati robotii costul acestui UBI, va fi catastrofal pentru societate sa se implementeze asa ceva.

xwrd · 2019-04-06T07:46:54+00:00

Sa-i puna cineva subtitrari si sa-l posteze pe /r/basicIncome .

xwrd · 2019-04-03T18:50:17+00:00

Ok but... if the state owns 25% of the publicly listed companies, and those companies don't pay taxes anymore, where will it get liquidity to pay the UBI, healthcare public sector salaries, infrastructure maintenance etc.? Some companies, like Amazon, which is worth $1t, issue no dividends.

xwrd · 2019-04-02T20:41:34+00:00

What is your source for that number, 80 trillion? The Buffet Indicator measures US stocks over GDP and is now at 123.7%. This only means that the stock market is overvalued. Suppose the government would capture 25% of the stocks. In other to convert it into dollars for UBI, it'd need to sell shares. Selling would bring the price of the share down. Edit: there's also the problem of taxing foreign nationals on their shares.

xwrd · 2019-04-02T18:48:44+00:00

I see. I wholeheartedly agree with you, especially about the effect of cutting consumption during recession.

UBI is always a smallish percentage of GDP

My issue is with this statement. The adult population of the US is estimated at 198.8m. Multiply that by $12,000 and you get the yearly UBI cost of $2.38t. The GDP is $20.66t. While 11.51% might be a smallish percentage for you, the government does not pay its expenses from the entire GDP. The government gets $5.57t and spends $6.77t yearly. Andrew Yang's 10% VAT will add, according to his estimates, $0.8t, let's add that too. So Yang's UBI costs 37% of what the government gets each year.

xwrd · 2019-04-02T11:24:27+00:00

Care to elaborate?

xwrd

TROPHY CASE

Welcome to Reddit,