Basic income and other ways to fix capitalism | Federico Pistono | TEDxHaarlem
A few years ago, those who warned us about the risks of technological unemployment were labelled as luddites, crazy, or techno-pessimists. Now some of the greatest economists agree that automation poses a serious threat to the economy, with jobs disappearing and inequality on the rise. Today, those proposing radically new ideas to deal with this problem are being called crazy and idealistic. Old ideologies are outdated in the face of exponential change; we need to embrace a more holistic and adaptive system. I believe experiments with unconditional basic income, coupled with the utilization of crypto currencies and blockchain-based technologies, will help us find the answers.’
Federico Pistono is a futurist, social entrepreneur, hacktivist, public speaker, founder and CEO of konoz - a startup that curates and organizes educational videos, whose mission is to become the largest online community for free learning in the world - and he's author of the best-selling book "Robots Will Steal Your Job, But That's OK: How to Survive the Economic Collapse and Be Happy", which has been translated into Spanish, German, and Italian. He lectures regularly at Universities and Fortune 500 companies about the future of humanity.
This talk was given at a TEDx event using the TED conference format but independently organized by a local community. Learn more at ted.com/tedx
He's changing the slides just by pointing. It's magic.
+Matt Orfalea He's wearing muscle electrical activity detector wristband, which has been programmed to respond to finger pointing action.
haha :D
There this great article about the Year Capitalism Could Have Changed - www.crowdholding.com/blog/130/the-year-capitalism-could-have-changed
yes , it is!!!
Matt Orfalea David ick
Regardless of whether the UBI is or is not the solution, we need a solution, this problem cannot be ignored. Even if you're a hardcore cut throat capitalist that adopts a Scrooge position to the surplus labour force, your business cannot survive without a customer. Can we at least agree on that? Well who is the customer when a great deal of the population are unemployed? Human resource costs are often businesses largest expense, the first thing they try to minimise. By fully automating your business you can produce your good or service at a much lower price, but if everyone does this; then consumers won't have any disposable income. It won't matter how cheap your product is, people with no income will still be unable to afford it. There will be some that still have an income from employment, but the competition for their business will be very fierce. Many businesses will be in surplus to the spending power available in the economy. What they imposed on their workforce will become their own fate. So this needs to be solved. Not just to be humane, but to keep the economy afloat as well. Business after all is a cycle of transactions between producers and consumers, one cannot survive without the other.
+AnnoyedDragon If what you said were true then if we looked at the unemployment rate we should be able to see a gradual increase of the number of unemployed people actively searching for a job as a percentage of the general population. We should see at least the start of this trend. It simply isn't there. Let's have this talk about the basic income when this hypothesis for a modern economy with fewer and fewer jobs actually becomes a reality. IMHO it will never happen (people talk about this happening since the start of the industrial revolution - it is not new), certainly not in this century.
+LHFX You know the unemployment rate figures are fiddled right? They redefined unemployment to mean job seeker claimants, so they can reduce the unemployment rate by taking people off jobseekers. Anyone who is sanctioned is magically no longer unemployed. They also count anyone "in training" as not unemployed, so anyone on the work programme aren't counted in the figures; even though they're obviously unemployed. Then there are all the zero hour contract people who are counted as in employment, even though there is no contractual requirement to give them any hours. There are so many ways they can fiddle the figures down. I remember when I was at A4e they stuck us on this fraudulent course that didn't teach us anything, a week before the figures were due to be published. The affect was because we were "in training" at that time, we weren't counted in the figures. They announced a "jobs miracle" that following week with how low the figures dropped...
+AnnoyedDragon You have no idea what are you talking about. Search for ILO: "Resolution concerning statistics of the economically active population, employment, unemployment and underemployment, adopted by the Thirteenth International Conference of Labour Statisticians (October 1982)" This is how everyone measures unemployment ever since, including in Romania, where I'm from. Of course someone who is in training isn't counted because they don't fall under the definition, but the definition itself remains unchanged. Therefore, a change in the way the labour market functions should be observed by simply looking at the unemployment rate.
+LHFX You seem to think that just because a international standard exists, this somehow prevents the UK government from fiddling the figures. You're very naive if that is the case. As another example, all the UK government has to do is sanction someone of their unemployment benefit; then like magic they're no longer unemployed. www.michaelmeacher.info/weblog/2014/03/government-fiddles-unemployment-figures-by-classifying-all-people-sanctioned-as-having-left-claimant-count/
+AnnoyedDragon You see... this is what happens when you try and learn economics or read news from blogs. Then you come here pretending that you can have informed opinions on the subject. Unemployment is measured based on a survey that follows precisely that definition set out by the ILO. It has absolutely nothing to do with the number of people claiming and/or receiving unemployment benefits. I'm talking about the unemployment rate that you will find reported by EUROSTAT... not some bogus figures posted on Daily Mail or some blog of an MP. "Short Description: Unemployment rates represent unemployed persons as a percentage of the labour force. The labour force is the total number of people employed and unemployed. Unemployed persons comprise persons aged 15 to 74 who were: a. without work during the reference week, b. currently available for work, i.e. were available for paid employment or self-employment before the end of the two weeks following the reference week, c. actively seeking work, i.e. had taken specific steps in the four weeks period ending with the reference week to seek paid employment or self-employment or who found a job to start later, i.e. within a period of, at most, three months." Source - EUROSTAT. First learn where you can get reliable information in order to learn... then learn. Otherwise, despite your good intentions you'll end up just fooling yourself.
If you like this talk ,you need to look up presidential candidate Andrew Yang on KZhead.
@BUXB Definitely preferred anyway. :)
Pretty sure Yang picked up some ideas from this guy
@@thetruthbetoldpodcast-hiph9311 They may even be friends. Hmmmm?
Oh no jts magic lol
8 months later Yang is failing as bad as historical UBI. LOL!
one of the best TED talks I've seen, I love the emphasis on the data
@Snappingturtle 267 did you even watch the video?? ignoramous!
@Snappingturtle 267 you didn't watch the part where he clearly states that biggest companies actually reduce employment rates all over the world I guess..
@Snappingturtle 267 some of the most basic rules on which capitalism is founded are going rotten. Marginal costs are going to 0 pretty fast --> there's no more profit for investments in real economy + automation unemployement is about to explode, like really fast. If you link the income to the job there'll simply not be people buying stuff (another rule at the base going down)
@Snappingturtle 267 I don't even know why I am replying.. maybbe for other people who might read? Anyhow: rule#01: in order for an investor to risk his capital is the promise of a profit. If the marginal costs of products go to 0, there is just no room for profit. If the production cost for goods becomes 0$ then competition will just erase the profit rule#02: in order to sell something, you need someone to buy it. This works as long as you give money to those who work for you and they will use their money to buy stuff. When unemployement goes to 50% in an eye blink, there will just not be people buying stuff. Both this things are happening and have never happened before. I give you that free market (which BTW is tecnically something different from capitalism, which has a specific meaning) worked pretty well up until now raising live standards all over the world (poor countries above all). I just see how this can't just go on forever and how it probably ends pretty soon.
@@marcopinchetti5872 This guy could not pass Economics 101. Period. And I'd love to debate him in front of the world. WHAT Data is there Yanti? He just throws up Buzz Words with no explanation of the Results of what has Happened BECAUSE of Capitalism. Which is being the Greatest Thing to Ever happen for Human Life and Equality. You go Live in the Soviet Union and Venezuela and North Korea. Get back to me.
I swear it feels like yang watched this video and brought it into politics
Haha yeah I was thinking that aswell lol
Like a stated earlier. They might even be friends.
His idea to implement UBI was way before his candidacy.
Yang needs to get a better plan 1,000 isn’t enough
if you mean that in the sense that yang wants to implement the experiment Federico is talking about, then yes. In yang's case it would last 4 years :) Federico is calling for detailed experiments, not implementing it right away.
Sinds I was 18 years old I got benefits from the government unconditionally for health reasons. I allways worked alot eventhough I didn't necessarily needed to. It gave me space to reach my goals and in some ways I'm better off than my friends with alot less stress surrounding me making me more productive. Actually doing a study I want to do and not just for the money, or having to keep a job that's completely tiring me out just to pay rent and have my food. I have the space to actually do something for society being a part time social worker.
Thx for sharing this!
You know that Government gave you money from people that actually work and pay taxes, right?
What's stopping land lords from raising rent when basic income is implemented? Same thing that stops them from raising rent without basic income: competition.
Also price fixing is illegal in the U.S. And other countries
+Abe Dillon That's right. If I raise the rent a thousand euros and the other landlord doesn't, I'm not going to be a landlord for long. But if I *don't* jack up the rent, then people who could _almost_ afford to rent from me now _can_ rent from me. Now what would I rather do: gain new customers or chase away the ones I've already got?
+Abe Dillon .... Or policy. It's all about keeping those with more accountable. Otherwise they run the rest of us over eventually.
+Abe Dillon The Law of Rent. "The rent of land is determined by the excess of its produce over that which the same application can secure from the least productive land in use." -- David Ricardo Think of a new subway station only short walk from your apartment. Do you think your rent will remain the same after your lease is over? The competition won't be for tenants. It will be for your conveniently-located apartment. The supply of land is fixed; they are not making anymore. Other people will raise your rent, not the landlord.
a46475 They're not making any more of it *YET.* In Dubai they're making more of it, and if they can do it, so can others.
dude's right. without enough data, making an accurate model and prediction is impossible..
We already have enough data: welfare begets more welfare. That is a multi generational phenomenon that any simple study will not catch.
@@alvincay100 What's your source?
@Gerr Gerring "Structural inequality" is a nice scare word, but it in and of itself is a "fairy tale", to use the words of the speaker. Human ingenuity knows no bounds, and tends to blow apart just about every model you try to throw at it. Trump has already proven this in the US. No UBI there. Jobs, created by capitalism, with government out of the way. It's the same process that has lifted millions out of poverty world-wide over the decades.
@Gerr Gerring change your language. I was born into a middle class family. I have a 6 figure income. I inherited no "wealth". I inherited the benefit of loving and caring parents that taught me how to succeed in today's society. It's not wealth being transferred from parents to children. That's childish reasoning, and demonstrably untrue. What's transferred isn't wealth, it's knowledge and training.
@@kaufmanat1 Dude, what the heck are you talking about? Just because something is true for you doesn't mean it's true for 7 billion people. You may be healthy and are living in a first-world country, you have loving and caring parents who taught you how to be successful in this world, but a lot of people don't have any of that. And please kindly explain to me how the children of millionaires and billionaires are not inheriting wealth. It's true, you don't necessarily have to inherit wealth to be successful, esp. in America or Europe, but it's a gigantic advantage if you do. For most people the American Dream is just that - a dream.
UBI is not even a left-wing proposal. It entirely depends on the amount. If social security was replaced by a UBI of 200$ per month, it would be an extremely right-wing policy because it would A) reduce tax spending and B) unemployed people would receive less than now. Also, unemployed people would have MORE incentive to work because getting a job does not conflict with the UBI they receive, as opposed to social security, so that counter-argument doesn't make sense either. If you truly believed in capitalism, shouldn't you trust people's self-interest motivating them to work, rather than having the government forcing unemployed people to apply for jobs?
It would probably be a lot more than $200 a month
Here's a motivation to get people back to work....Stop giving them free money. Cut the welfare crap and watch them get to work.
I'm pretty sure they would just starve to death. Who would employ unskilled labor when machines do the job cheaper and faster?
I was replaced once by a machine. You know what I did, I improved my skillset. I didn't starve. I was ineligible for welfare so I was very motivated to work to eat. So should all be.
Good thing you didn't run out of funds before finding a new job. Not everyone has the opportunity to re-train.
I love the message behind this video. Capitalism is good, but when it's nor working, you don't get rid of it. You improve it.
As a Swiss I was saddened that this wasn't given a chance. Had more Swiss watched this Ted Talk of yours and had not been scared by those against it, who knows what would have become? We Swiss are a scared bunch, always asking who will pay, bla bla bla. So, am 61 now, I voted for it, but the majority was scared and voted NO. Too bad? I think an opportunity missed. Sad but true. Love your talk Federico Pistono!
That's really unfortunate! Would have loved to see how this experiment would've played out!
I am willing to volunteer to be experimented on!
So you are lazy?
Rachel Evans Would you also volunteer to pay more in taxes or have the cost of everything you buy go up? Doubt it, but either one of those will for a fact happen if UBI does.
@@ebe7157 some people have higher IQ cant fulfill their life with just getting a job.
Rachel Evans have you heard of sm1 yet?
EBE 7 i am,
I think this guy may have warmed up my frigid opinion against UBI. Very impressive, I need to do more research
Chris Scoggins I’m in the same mindset. I’m not necessarily opposed to new social programs. Only so long as they have the proper research and real word data to support them.
I suggest we run a U.S. wide 250+ million sample size UBI experiment at the level of 1000$ per month for the next 50+ years.
Have you heard of Andrew Yang?
So we would spend 14% of our GDP on UBI? That’s a great way to crash our economy, slow GDP Growth, and bankrupt us. How do we pay for this?
Great demonstration and speech, enjoyed this very much. The impossible is possible, the conclusion and 'outro' to this video was a very empowering and great message as well. Thank you.
ANDREW YANG 2020
Andrew Yang 2020!
Such a clear talk to make a reflect about the incoming problems. Keep it up Federico!
Huge respect that he spoke that good ,he is so young and his thinking is really good
Thanks Federico for your talk. Let's do it!
Yang 2020
Thank you! Great Ted talk.
For the last 7 years, I have been working on an concept that will solve the issue of poverty, reversing economic inequality, and reducing or eliminating the need for welfare programs. My concept is the only method I am aware of that will grow and stabilize the middle class while creating income for those at the bottom without disturbing the foundation of capitalism for which America and most developed countries are built upon. I have also expanded it to include asset acquisition and wealth building due to the inevitable loss of jobs from automation and technology. Governments, Educational Institutions and Nonprofit Organizations across the world are finally beginning to experiment and understand the value and benefits of Universal Basic Income. We are still ahead of the curve because, our concept is the only one that addresses the elephant in the room question of expansion funding and sustainability. All other ideas will require some form of tax revenue and government involvement in order to function. Wouldn't this still be a government social net program similar to what we currently have? Our concept is totally different, because it will be supported by the private sector and capable of self-funding after a small initial investment as it expands to rapidly benefit more people, provide more opportunities, strengthen our economy and solve more problems. Nothing like United Shared Savings Network has ever been proposed for implementation, study or a pilot project. I also haven't seen or read anything similar in stories or articles on the subject matters of Economic Inequality, New Economy, Universal Basic Income etc. The United Shared Savings Network concept may very well be the Holy Grail that we seek to fix that which we are all trying to accomplish in making the world a better place for everyone. I am dedicated and truly concerned about moving humanity forward and making this world a better place for everyone.
You’re essentially tryna baby people
A very objective and honest talk about UBI. Frederico Pistono. I’ll remember that name.
we're the youth. We must take control over the chaos created by influential greedy capitalists
Western TV must be fixed to fix capitalism. This TV shows nonsense instead of what situation in the world really is and how good life should look.
Yang gang 2020
Yang2020!!!
Yang Gang
Andrew Yang has my vote!
"VENTURE CAPITAL FOR THE PEOPLE" UBI ~
Fede!!! Quando hai datto questo Tedd Talk! Lo scropro solo oggi, quanto sono fiero di te!!!
For those who do not speak Italian, he was my senior in high school!!!at the United World College of the Adriatic.
The best I have heard to date on this subject.
YES give me my basic income so I can quit my job ,and play with my RC cars
If you hate your job so much, it probably would be for the best.
There are some people out there who claim to be capitalists but really aren't, and this question is a test for separating the two. Pure capitalism is no basis for arguing against a UBI. If you believe that using a token currency is the best method for distributing resources, and the UBI ensures a baseline level of circulation in the marketplace, there is no principle you can point to to reject the notion without contradicting yourself. The problem is not everybody agrees on the goal. . . some (very successful and influential) people view capitalism as a means of inflicting justice, as a means of taking things _away_ from people for the sin of not being like them.
If you give to all ppl basic income u will have to steal from ppl that work hard and save money.
GeneralJack This is already true without a UBI
@@Z4RQUON It is always true and it is wrong thing to do but giving to all ppl printed money will completely destroy its value. It is happening in my country.
What you said about rent is true in the short therm. If rents increase then appartments become more profitable. If they're more profitable then they will build more apartments which will bring the prices down. Once the supply matches demand, they will have lower prices to a reasonable amount because of competition.
Nice theory, but in practice it's more profitable for housing-owners to make sure there's a housing-shortage
Problems: 1: Not so much "adapt to other fields" as stay within their classification and adapt to the change. Coach builders didn't disappear with the invention of the automobile, they started building cars (or car parts), Secretaries and computer programmers didn't disappear when ASM gave way to C and C++ or hand-written dictation giving way to typewriters and computers. 2: Inequality isn't bad. You premise that a basic income is good. It isn't: How do you define an average? Add the member values together and divide by the number of members. So start with 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5: The average is 3. What's the average? 3. By adding a basic income (call it 2) you no longer have any ones. What's the problem? Oh, nothing, except that physics describes the flow of money. The first law of thermodynamics basically amounts to "no free lunch": you can't create something (energy, order or money) from nothing. The absolute worst still is to take from the top to pay the bottom: Communism. That doesn't work. It leads to "wreckers", "as long as the state pretends to pay me, I will pretend to work", shortages, state sanctioned executions and cattle cars to Gulags. What you're doing is destroying the incentive to make things (Why should I work harder when I get paid regardless) Is it wrong that CEOs should be compensated commensurate with the amount of risk their investors aren't exposed to and reward provided under their leadership? 3: The middle class is under siege not by the haves, but by the have-nots. 4: Redistribution doesn't change things. And you can't take just Germany, you have to include Greece and Spain, "Because LOL EUROZONE.". (Stings a bit, don't it. The US would be excellent if you could get rid of DC and NY, as usual.) South Korea's economy is sick: 1 USD will get you 1,138.45 Won. One Mexican Peso will get you 67 Won. Is that where you want to be? Because I don't. 5: (@8:49) I was always taught there is no such thing as "free money" or "free beer". And where would you get this money (@9:10) Oh hell no it isn't. I can already see this coming. It's been tried, it doesn't exist any more. Why? "Evolution": It made the economies less fit than the current systems. It went extinct. And before yammering about "But it hasn't been tried here! We can make it work this time!" Yeah, and I'll bet Lucy really will hold that football this time so you can kick it, Charlie Brown. 6: @11:00 That's not a right. That's a privilege. A right is something simple that relies on no government (per se.) and leaves you open to the consequences of exercising that right. Self defense, ability to say what you please, the ability to associate with others as one pleases... Taking from others (and yes, by implied lethal force: what happens if you say "Fuck you, I won't pay my taxes to support this!" you will be carted off to jail. If you say "Fuck you: no, I won't go!" you will be shot more than likely.) 7: @11:31 Oh, I've heard something like this before. "You have to pass the bill to see what's in it." That's unconscionable. *Prove* it works *first*. Tell me the unintended and "unanticipated" (which any reasonably intelligent adult can anticipate) consequences. 8: @12:17 Oh, good, then why are you pushing the idea? Go do more (and larger) experiments. 9: @14:02 That would be because there was someone else to employ and/or market to that wasn't a part of the study. (goes back to point #4) 10: @15:42 Except for when it doesn't. People come to the US for health care from public, single payer health care systems. (I wouldn't consider Canada or the UK health care systems to be a "working" by any stretch of the imagination. 11: @15:55 Oh great, I can see the five-year agricultural plans forming already, Comrade. 12: @17:15 And the year after? How are you going to account for the "median" income when everyone is getting paid 50% of that. (average of 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 is 3, pay everyone 1.5 and the inequality still exists. Limit it to everyone under 3 and you end up with perverse outcomes like 2s becoming 3.5s. Nice job, you've just shot the middle class (the 3s) you're trying to save. Why would the 3s work to be paid higher than 2? 13: @17:25 I can already tell you, it won't be. Save your time. This rolls back to the parenthetical snark in #7, above. 14: @17:48 Blind leading the blind there, Chief. I *did* say *reasonably intelligent adult*, didn't I? 15: @18:00 LOL BWAHAHAHA! Oh, that's rich. I can simplify bureaucracy a lot quicker: It's called a going through the laws on the books and removing them if they adversely impact anyone doing an activity that doesn't impact others negatively. (Prostitution is one of these: "...[T]he intersection of sex and capitalism. Which are you against?") 16: @18:06 Yes, I'm going to trust my money to a deflationary system. (If my money is going to be worth more in a few days, why am I going to spend it?) Bitcoin and other cryptocurrencies has some pretty bad side effects, commented on ad nauseam, by smarter people elsewhere. 17 @18:15 And they still haven't cracked the issue because of the block chain size and lack of internet. 18: And they still haven't voted on the matter nine months later. 20: @18:51 Let me shoot some of those down: "But I thought your health care system was Teh Best EVAR!!!!~`1!!!one!", "Not bad in and of itself, see above", "Not a factor, see #1 above", "See #12." 22: @19:18 You can point that finger at the people saying "THE SCIENCE IS SETTLED!" and "PEOPLE WHO DISAGREE WITH AGW SHOULD NOT BE ALLOWED TO SPEAK!" That is, the same people who believe income inequality is a bad thing. 23: @19:37 'scuse, but that picture was brought to you by income inequality. Have a nice day. Signed, A member of the (lower) middle class.
+Andrew Foss TL;DR. You actually tried to use the laws of heat and energy to support your argument - talk about trying to hammer in a nail with a banana. You talk too much - lay off the drugs.
phys.org/news/2009-11-law-thermodynamics-economic-evolution.html Or en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thermoeconomics Or tuvalu.santafe.edu/~desmith/PDF_talks/Econ_Thermo_CSSS_07_SF.pdf Or even academic.pgcc.edu/~wboyle/TMDInfoEcon.pdf TL;DR: Everything is physics.
We need to focus on data-driven, not ideology driven decision making. But even so Basic Income has something for people from every side of the traditional "spectrums": lower government involvement and cost in assistance programs for the fiscally and socially 'right'. And on the 'left', everyone theoretically gets to have a basic standard of living that's considerably higher than what is possible through current assistance programs. The creation of wealth will rely less and less on labour going forward, so Basic Income is at least worth a reasonable experimental attempt.
It has failed every time it's been tried.
Marc Hebert crazy Andrew Yang has a slogan that goes “not left not right. Forward. And he advocates for UBI”
@@marchebert9813 this is blatantly untrue.
A real experiment that dispenses with money entirely, has been tried in several locations. That alternative seems to be left out of the conversation? The cost is considerable lower..... The effect is equality. The only people harmed are the Wealthy. Their cease to exist, due to the measurement needing money to establish value.....
Hardcore Absolute Fact: 1.) Private building ownership ( rent control ) must be calculated based on the poorest sovereign human beings ( homeless ) who are excluded from society from livable wage, respectable jobs and make a living panhandling to survive! Property owners are too greedy and never moral = always raising rents on the hardwork of those on fixed incomes!
Very good suggestions, experiment with those things! There might be much better possibilities, that we can discover along the way, but not, if nobody dares to start...
Without UBI I would be just as dead! I have seen the same over 20 job openings appearing on Linked and on many websites that are dedicated to advertising job openings for the past 6 months. I have sent out literally over 100 applications and have never been offered an interview. After a couple days or weeks, I would sometimes receive via email messages informing me that the job offer is no longer available and that my resumé would be placed on file. However, these same vacancies would resurface on these same or different websites/platforms! I'm a professional in Electronic security and Structured cabling but now have been unemployed for the past 6 months! I bought myself a new tool kit and electronic test equipment recently. So, I have decided that I should try to design electronic security systems, CCTV, with the use of AutoCad and other CCTV design software. It's going to be 100% free at first.
He kind of sounds like Dr Nick from the simpsons, my favorite accent.
Hey everybody
Alaska has been pretty much doing this since 1982
Just with any system, UBI can be tweaked around in order to not be able to be abusable in any way.
Or at least, not as abusable as the current system
Anyone know what font he's using on his slides?
This is such an important advancement that mankind inevitably needs to arrive to, even if the idea currently seems to completely foreign and unprecedented. People need to accept that the world is a very different place than it was even just a couple decades ago. Many studies show that most people will continue seeking ways to contribute to society even if they don't have to. And many of our greatest minds agree that a Universal Basic Income is simply inevitable. Even wealthy individuals can see how this will simply make the world a much better place. I hope to see this become the norm in our lifetimes, if not in the next 10-20 years. (Note this is not assuming that there are not other problems that are will also need addressing in the long run, such as preventing overpopulation and climate change).
What I always see in discussions about basic income is that people call other people parasites that will not contribute to society if they would get a basic income. But for themselves: "No, of course I will not quit my job if I get a basic income". So then: why do these people only consider other people to be parasites and not themselves? I think people who call other people parasites need psychological help, to help them to get real.
because people are not equal. however, basic income is deadly for society. swiss people are not idiots to reject it.
How do you know basic income is "deadly for society"? Most people in Norway, where I live, have more than a basic income, and we think that's swell. I don't have any data either and agree with the TED-talker that the effects of UBI are unknown. But I can see some reasons to think it would be very good for society. Here's some of what I imagine might happen: People who love their jobs would continue doing them, and people who don't like their job would quit. Many of those who quit will however not be sitting around at home doing nothing. Some will just enjoy life and reduce their consumption so they can get by on the basic income. Some will study, at universities or online or something else, to try to get into a line of work that they think they will actually enjoy. And I think quite a few would start working on their own little "get rich" schemes. Many business ideas that take time to get going or generate to little income to be viable today might be perfectly possible in a UBI context, and I think we would see a little explosion in innovation. But even more importantly, this would really transform our workplaces. When employers know that their employees have the very real possibility of just saying "thanks, but no thanks" and leave, they will have much stronger incentives to treat them well. In high-skilled jobs where people need a long time to become productive employees it is already expensive for an employer to have high turnover, so they do tend to treat these employees quite well and keep them happy. But people in low-skilled jobs (not low-skilled workers! the cashier may have great skills, but there may be greater supply than demand for those skills) are easy to replace, and employers are nowhere near as consistently treating them well. UBI would shift the power balance and lead to workers having far more of a say regarding their own job. We might also have to pay higher wages for some low-skilled but unpleasant jobs that not many people enjoy doing. But I think that's a good thing too - if a job is unpleasant it is only fair that this gets compensated through higher pay. To simply exploit people who depend on us, such as by refusing to give fair compensation because we know they have no real choice, is immoral.
CommonCentsRob lol, but you are going to be the only honest one to keep your job and receive ubi... The leeches won't do anything productive at all. Thanks for letting us know though must be from the future to know how this turns out and how the the majority of these leeches wont do/give back in anyway shape or form. You da real hero
maarten plug wrong buddy, I would never work again.
This is what is called, in psychology, FAE Fundamental Attribution Error. Meaning you perceive the locus of control to be internal for others but external for yourself. In short you say when others behave poorly it's because they are flawed but when I behave poorly it is because things around me are flawed
Could basic income be approached as an allowance on basic needs such as grocery, healthcare, housing, utilities, and non-luxury items? Picture an amped up version of food stamps that only goes to certain things. Would this allow us to shift focus away from money and toward management of specific resources to meet needs?Additionally, how much of basic needs within a community could be creatively addressed through crowdfunding and volunteer efforts? What key technologies and innovations put power in the hands of volunteer producers?Please share your thoughts
Shiiit, I missed this one! I would have loved to see this in haarlem instead of behind the pc!
The problem with running limited experiments (even with 10s of thousands of participants) is that nay-sayers will always argue that it only worked because the scale was significantly smaller than a whole country.
Confirmation bias by optional stopping. They're only critical about the other side of the debate. Also, when has such a large experiment ever failed to extrapolate to a group thought to be represented by the sample? It's rare enough that such arguments should be taken to be nonsense or at least without justification.
Even when you do it and prove it on a larger amount of people they'll go: Yeah, but the population there is homogeneous... Which, I have realized really just translates to; "Successful because everyone is white there.'
Fix capitalism is to bring back capitalism.We haven’t had capitalism in many years. Bring back competition
I would consider myself far right... but I love this Milton Friedman idea. This idea rewards WORK! Our current system gives food stamps, welfare, section 8, but when you WORK, you get less help. It punishes people who try to help themselves.
Interested to know where the money for the India experiment @8:39 came from
Basic Income should not be seen upon as 'free money' but a dividend because ALL people have worked to build the richness on this planet but only a few been allowed to benefit from it, hoarding money in another word. This is the very cause of all the so called 'crisis' and suffering we have today.
kaxitaksi
Yeah, but how could it be accomplished? Tax the riches wont work.
People come in all different shapes and sizes. Some people are genuinely lazy sods who will never contribute to society unless they need to in order to feed themselves. Forget guaranteed income, implemented guaranteed jobs instead.
On the note of laziness, with guaranteed money you could take more risks. Also this could help address the world of automation outlined in CPG Grey's "humans need not apply" ( also watch that video if you haven't already. ). On the lines of funding I have heard about implementing a carbon tax, which kills two birds with one stone. I'm not sure how truthful the estimates are, but some say that a guaranteed basic income is cheaper than our welfare programs etc. .
You are right, there is a big difference between the kinds of risks I'll take if failing will leave me broke and the the risks I'll take where failure is essentially meaningless. A UBI will indeed free people up to do all sorts of things they couldn't do before, but most of the things they do will be without value to the rest of society.
ANDREW YANG
Rip.
Anyone know where he got his "revenue per employee" statistics? And if the revenue listed is by the year or by the lifetime?
Where can I get the expirement data?
I am the top 2% and I do own a lot of real estate - and I actually think this "citizen salary" will work. But in order for it to work and to equalize out the wealth, we need more equal simple tax rules. Today the tax rules are so complex and advanced that it is easy for a guy like me (who can afford very expensive tax accountants) to completely avoid taxes even thou I make a lot of money. The solution to pay this "citizen salary" would be to tax everyone equally and completely REMOVE all the complex tax rules. If we made it 35% taxes on any and all income, even I could not avoid to pay it. As long as people think "tax the rich higher with complex tax laws" we will never get the rich to pay taxes cause we always knows how to avoid them. The more complex tax rules, the better for us. A simple law saying 35% of EVERYTHING - that would be impossible to get around, even for the rich, and then we can afford this citizen salary! .
nothing is impossible to get around. people will find a way. why not instead of raising the rich mans taxes we lower the poor mans?
+John Burt maybe one day you can be president and have your tax code officially ignored and evaded.
+John Burt morally I can't support any tax code morally. and pragmatically there are no taxes that don't pose problems to peoples freedom and the economy in general.
+John Burt I don't need to answer your question to defend freedom morally. i don't support any initiation of force no matter what end they are for. and pragmatically no government can protect you from the problems you listed. the usa has never been more encompassing and powerful yet none of those issues are completely solved. what do you do for the poor? there are free market answers for all of your questions. all you need to do is search with reason instead of beliefs.
+John Burt if you are genuinely curious then give this article a read. it covers most of what you brought up. mises.org/library/markets-are-our-best-hope-peaceful-cooperation
I'm a big fan of him. He delivered speech I want to talk since the previous TED Talks
While I agree that a control is important, it's worth noting that this study by definition won't be blind, let alone double blind. I know part of the goal would be to see what biases show up, but...experiments in a social setting are difficult because the nature of a societies' biases changes faster than you can build a model of it...
Here's something from Wikipedia: "Musa made his pilgrimage between 1324-1325.[18][19] His procession reportedly included 60,000 men, including 12,000 slaves[20] who each carried 4 lb (1.8 kg) of gold bars and heralds dressed in silks who bore gold staffs, organized horses, and handled bags. Musa provided all necessities for the procession, feeding the entire company of men and animals.[21] Those animals included 80 camels which each carried 50-300 lb (23-136 kg) of gold dust. Musa gave the gold to the poor he met along his route. Musa not only gave to the cities he passed on the way to Mecca, including Cairo and Medina, but also traded gold for souvenirs. It was reported that he built a mosque every Friday.[citation needed] Musa's journey was documented by several eyewitnesses along his route, who were in awe of his wealth and extensive procession, and records exist in a variety of sources, including journals, oral accounts, and histories. Musa is known to have visited the Mamluk sultan of Egypt, Al-Nasir Muhammad, in July 1324.[22] But Musa's generous actions inadvertently devastated the economy of the regions through which he passed. In the cities of Cairo, Medina, and Mecca, the sudden influx of gold devalued the metal for the next decade. Prices on goods and wares greatly inflated. To rectify the gold market, on his way back from Mecca, Musa borrowed all the gold he could carry from money-lenders in Cairo, at high interest. This is the only time recorded in history that one man directly controlled the price of gold in the Mediterranean.[23]" en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Musa_I_of_Mali
you can get vast amounts of data on basic income from disabled veterans through the VA.
Aliens will look at us and ask why it took these creatures so long to make UBI a reality
I am an alien and I approve of this message. 👀
@@MrDANGitall i believe you
Strong slide deck n the ideology debate thing he points out, sharp indeed. Need to watch out im asking the right question. Can It solve the problem.
You could go with the model where all necessities were provided for such as housing and food. Money was given for recreation.
Your idea is more profoundly developed in the following documentaries "Paradise or Oblivion" or "The Choice Is Ours 2016" or "Future By Design". Please view these films, they are the culmination of the lifes work of 100yr old Jacque Fresco. An elder with this much life experience deserves a few hours of our life....
yea i think we would have to limit monetization / profiteering from basic standard of living and survival things like: shelter, food, water, energy, amenities, utilities, transportation, communications. i think the government (ran by the people) should produce and service all of that stuff. and people can work in those sectors if they like those fields, other wise you can do what you want like art, research, or inventing and be funded by non profit common organisations. the common good will inform and guide the right direction. the world is run by the people which are run by their norms which are run by what they choose to feel and express.
horizon horizon Exactly, there is *absolutely no reason whatsoever* why a Government couldn't create whatever and however it wants it inside its territory, 100% employment (and *useful* employment, not "just" employment for the sake of it, *IF 100% employment is indeed NECESSARY* ), 100% free shelter, food, water, energy, utilities, transportation, communications etc. People who don't understand this simple fact, are, unfortunately, limited in thinking (and they are not to blame for it, it's just social conditioning and indoctrination at work...).
Maxim C. 😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂 Millions dead disagree. But I guess they’re just limited in their thinking. 🤣
Fantastic to see someone giving a serious consideration of the UBI. It can't be done on its own though as he said, there need to be limits on raising prices in many places. But it could work. I know I will likely be homeless in a few years and this would save me and give me more ability to continue jobhunting or business planning. Can't easily do that on a cold UK street in winter with lack of sleep and no shelter. Not looking forward to it.
+Destro7000 +eople who cant get jobs should have basic income and study in other areas to find jobs, and after that process if the person has job opportunities should accept that job.
I have seen almost every single ted talk about this over 120
Intelligent 🤓 young man . Bravo 👏
Andrew Yang for President!!
It's easy to know a basic income would work because a decent welfare program already works, which has good things, like a 'living income' but it also has 2 major flaws: It wants and tries to force everyone to have corporate work which implies: -All jobs are equal (yet only so much of the jobs are really really important, like farmers, architects etc. as opposed to a callcenter marketer). -Freedom is always less important than more (forced) luxury. Which when you think about, it BS. You do work 40 hours a week for something you don't like to do that adds very little to society and is no where near worth your 40 hours.
I am here because of Andrew Yang. It’s refreshing to see this was a serious discussion only 4 years ago and the things he is saying are so much more true and impactful now. It’s scary. We need to act now.
There has been books about UBI and automation from two decades ago :( I can't believe that Bernie and Warren supporters are dismissing Yang because they either Think the UBI he is proposing is too low, or that the consumption tax is not to their liking, despite the fact that consumption tax is proven to work and force Amazon to pay it and UBI offsets the VAT on the consumer by alot as well as that a grand a month is around 40% of the median income, right on the ballpark of what he says in the video. Andrew Yang is talking reality and solutions, Bernie Bros are talking about achieving a Utopia where you don't have to work a day in your life and still be able to live comfortably. Reality vs Ideology is really gonna determine who will win this election.
The problem with UBI is that there is no one-size fits all, once you get above an area of say 400 square miles. Cost of living differs drastically from place to place, not just country to country, but state to state or even city to city. And if there are differing amount based on region, there is whole other can of worm. So instead of UBI, I think what would work better is unconditional basic amenities, which will be broken into categories of food, clothing, housing, health care, transport etc. You will get a small monetary reward for any amenity category you do not use (if you use none, basically the UBI), which will be less than the actual value of the amenity. In this case, we won't have to worry about the varying cost of living, because what is provided is essentially "living" disregarding the cost. The problem with that, of course, is the increased management logistic in providing the amenities instead of just a flat sum of money. But... like I said, flat sum will never be "perfect" one way or the other.
The first job intelligent robots need to replace, is politicians. Only then might I trust collectivist solutions. Otherwise, we can be guaranteed that the political class that causes the ever increasing wealth in gap, will not continue to do so.
What about a direct democracy? I mean, we have the technology, we will have the time if robots are doing our jobs,... Why not?
I'd rather have robots ruling over me than corrupt politicians or my idiot neighbors. But if my only choices were corrupt politicians elected by my idiot neighbors, vs my idiot neighbors directly, I guess I'd choose the idiot neighbors. At least in most cases, their needs and desires are more likely to align with mine than those of corrupt politicians.
That's a nice dream; the only difficulty is that the AI has to be programmed somehow by somebody, and while we've figured out how to teach AI how to perform mechanical tasks, analyze data, and recognize patterns, teaching a machine the ethics needed for policy making is still a long way beyond what we're capable of. I think the best we can hope for is to use AI as a tool for evidence-based legislation.
and lawyers that way everyone gets the best legal aid instead of just the wealthy.
Exactly! But on a large scale in large nations it may not work, even with technology. Think about hacking. meddling, corruption etc..
Wouldn't the law of resources supply and demand push prices up and incur catastrophic environmental consequences, when everyone can consume? (let's not talk about resources based economy model here yet but rather the current paradigm in which the world operates)
Redistribution actually brings more money into the economy. If you take money from the wealthy through taxes, you are taking money that they are just sitting on. No one can spend millions of dollars each year. Which means they just get more and more money they dont need and dont spend. They already attained the highest standard of living with almost no possibility to further increase it. If you take the money they are just sitting on and give it to the less fortunate(or in this case for UBI), these people will have money to increase their standard of living(more or better nutrition, car, education etc.), which will further boost economy. It's really bad for economy if only a few people have a lot, but a lot of people dont have enough
The big question is how do you regulate population growth in the future if everyone, regardless of working status, can have the means to raise children with no limits. The unsavoury prospect is that if governments pay for peoples existences they may have the moral right to decide who has children and how many children and what the population structure in the future looks like. Present day welfare systems have to face this dilemma but while a substantial majority of people are working and actively contributing it does not matter. It will be of crucial concern if ,as predicted, a large majority pf people are UBI recipients very few are working.
This constructivist point of view is maybe the most simplistic but also the most realistic one, just like he said: We NEED more public debate about the UBI based on real empirical studies on longterm affects to overcome the inequality, caused by the capitalistic maximisation of profits.
All money is derived from "production." When you create money without underlying production and hand it to people not producing, the money becomes devalued in purchasing power. Also, you and I all know plenty of people who would love to get just enough basic income to not work at all. Thus, most of us would work so that a large swath of people can be lazy. Not.... happening.
When jobs in retail, driving, trucking, maunfacturing, steel-milling, agriculture, etc. get all taken by machines, how exactly do you propose we sustain a population of nearly 10 billion individuals, most of which unemployed? The only way is taxing machines like they're humans, and that money becomes the UBI, which is then used by people for purchasing things. The alternative is mass extermination.
@@reaperluke3518 & @Roy Piper. These are both very good points. Both agree the money has to come from tax. The problem now is trillions of dollars have been printed out of thin air and this must stop or it will just get worse.
Nobility still exists. Today, we simply call them rich people.
巨人の肩 but with capitalism anyone can become rich, now it is hard to become rich but it is possible and that’s what makes capitalism work.
KZhead and google Andrew Yang!
For the inflation argument, let us imagine a closed system with 10 widgets, 10 people each with $10 Now let say the widgets can now be created by automation ie, basically, there is no limit to the amount of its production. In that scenario, there would be no inflation as there is essentially an unlimited supply of widgets, the unit price can remain the same regardless of the demand. The only bottleneck to the number of transactions in this system is the amount of money in circulation.
The ones who control the money; control the people.
The idea is good, in theory. The problem comes when you realize that this will concentrate power in the hands of a very elite few. These people will literally hold the life (and death) of billions of people in their hands. Conformity to their standards will be what allows you to feed your family. Is this the brave new world we want?
We have that now with global capitalism.
+Peter Bergin no, we have a mixture of capitalism and socialism aka corporatism. If you think it's bad now, imagine how bad it would be with full-blown socialism, which is essentially what this would be.
+digitalaffect What's to stop businesses from raising prices now that they know everyone has a guaranteed $1000 or so every month? What's to stop your landlord from raising your rent by $1000?
You mean the very few elites - Democrats and Republicans, right? Two wolves against the rabbits...
lj5732 Until AI surpasses them. One thing is for sure in the future AI will decide the future of humanity.
YangGang!!!!! We need UBI in America!
I think there are two major hurdles for getting effective data from studies. 1. Income is very much a relative concept. If you give 10k people in a city of 100k a basic income the psychological effect of them having money is very different, than if everyone get the money. There is also the problem that you mentions with the income affecting prices of especially services. 2. As we saw with the communist experiment some of the effects are very long term. Your people watch older people to determine what life choices lead to a good life. One of the problems we are trying to solve, is that people who do not have the skills to compete with automation should still be able to have a good life. If we make major changes in what life choices lead to a good life how will this affect the choices that young people make about their future?
In the U.S.A. Health Care costs didn't increase because of privatization, they increased because of government subsidization. Same thing that caused education costs to increase. Same thing that causes most states to grow useless crops.
Why fix something you can replace.
Dude, I know I'm writing this like a year later, but your quote is pretty much the definition of capitalism.
I'm in favour of UBI. Currently, people are absorbing the costs of capitalism through poor health, begging, borrowing and stealing. I'm quite happy to have my fellow human being live a better life, otherwise we pay for it anyway.
Lunda Wright Taxation is theft. Prove me wrong.
exactly
Very well put together. Great job!
Federico: hai per caso partecipato come finanziatore o comunque sai se alla fine della fiera, qualcuno ha portato avanti per 2 anni come dici te, tutti gli esperimenti del caso ? Grazie
Wow this is such a good idea, I can't wait to see how we are gonna pay for it... ... and the video is over.
running a deficit is way more expensive in the long run than fixing it.
Like the one we have got now?
The whole point of the video was to invite people to start coming up with ideas on how to implement it, not to tell you how to do it, and certainly not to keep debating why it will or won't work when we don't even have the plan yet.
Trevin Beattie--It can't wok. No plan can make it work. The central government robbing people at gun point and giving to another. That is welfare and that keeps people down. Keeps the people that pay for it down also.
Check out 'The Venus Project' and its founder Jacque Fresco.
Not here to convince you if it works or not. If you have no interest in trying then it's your own viewpoint.
+The Brain If you don't want to participate in making a better world, that's your choice. But if we do achieve a world of abundance, no one will work for anyone, no one controls anyone to do anything other than what that person wants to do and accomplish based on their own interest and curiosity. When people don't have to submit to a job, and they don't have any challenges, this is when they will start to explore and work on things they find interesting and challenging. There's no force or threat on anyone because there's no basis for it.
+The Brain Again, I'm not here to convince you of anything. If you want to know more about The Venus Project, look more into it. If not, then lets move on.
The Venus Project has no convincing arguments, case studies or technology. They're a sci-fi lie.
I was once part of that cult. Jaques Fresco is truly one of the most amazing CON artists that ever existed. For 35 years he took donations for selling a utipoian dream to gullible economically illiterate people without advancing his idea one single step. But he sure built a nice luttle futuristic paradise for himself in Florida... And yeah, RBE is incredibly silly once you learn actual economics.
I have known of two counties that did this : It worked well except people went home and had large families and busted the economy. So one of those countries made a correction and said the state would only support the first 2 children. Problem solved.
This young man has more human emotion than anyone, and hope it does inspire the whole world to do this because we might not have time left on this planet. in 10 or 20 there will be no jobs A.I will take over most skill jobs anyway , so if your an accountants don't be so mighty.
i see rents going up the ubi amount lol. time to become a landlord.
That is exactly what will happen, Rent = UBI or even worse Rent = UBI*200% This does not have a legislative solution. Unless you want to print money and cause hyper inflation
15:00 Rent control That's what laws are for
Sounds like a good idea, the only thing, in order for it to work, it needs to come with price caps across the board on goods and services. Something along the lines of 10% above cost of production.
Brilliant idea whose time as come!
Wait....are you telling me that democratic socialism can work in Merica as well?!? It's amazing what you can learn if you simply look at what has and has not ALREADY been proven to work in other countries.
Social democracy I think is the term you are looking for. It is not quite the same as Democratic Socialism.
I grew up a conservative capitalist and even i can see the logic in this. it has to be done extremely carefully however, and gradual
What has to be so careful about it? Provide all citizens of the country with a basic income which keeps them above the poverty line, no strings attached. If people want to make more money, they can get a job and whatever they earn from the job is simply added to their income. No government control of private property needed, no socialist policies. The current capitalist system could stay in place untouched. All it would end up doing is truly giving every citizen an equal opportunity, one of the principles which this country was founded on.
+Hodor of the door Well people won't have that much more money per se under a well implemented UBI. Just enough to live on if they don't have a job. That won't really equate to massive increases in inflation.
Disaster--central government giving money out--is welfare. The government must rob people at gun point to get that money.
Hodor of the door What we better be extremely careful about is: implement UBI (and not just coins, but one enough to conduct a *very decent* life) as soon as possible and for as much as possible percentage of the population, *BEFORE* we end up in experiencing the consequences of the *overproduction crisis* much, MUCH worse than that of 1920s. Yep, if you didn't know, we are heading right in that direction, if we don't change...
Sam Watkins It's because you are not "a conservative capitalist" - these are just labels, designed to divide people which could actually have many common thoughts, but instead of sharing their worldview each other, they dismiss each other only by watching what's on the surface (a label).
As to the rent control dilemma. If you want to raise prices because we all have more money I will keep my prices the same and take all of your business. Competition will keep prices in check.
Rent Control also has the problem with limiting the incentives to build new apartments and homes. Why build an apartment complex if it will take decades or never get a return on your investment. Lots of people hate profit, but they also forget it is the incentive for almost everything to actually happen.
How about splitting up the society into different groups as well. I am a student in Germany and I believe if they were to receive a fixed income things would change too.