It probably qualifies as self-harm, but I set my alarm clock to NPR instead of a buzzer every morning. This probably ends up with me waking up even more angry and agitated than with a buzzer, but whatever.
Marketplace, PRI's economy news segment, runs for the last 8 minutes of the hour. One of their useless 2 minute interviews drifted towards discussion of a UBI, and then the guest said this:
The problem with a UBI is that it gives money to rich people as well as poor people. If you give everyone $1200, the poor will spend it while the rich will put it in their bank accounts, increasing inequality in the long run.
I'm somewhat UBI-skeptical, but this seemed self-evidently stupid to me. But the more I think about it the more I realize that that's not true. It's an ever-expanding spiral of stupid. It's illuminatingly stupid. Every prior that went into it is stupid. Every implication of it is stupid. It's just an incredible Zen Koan of Liberalism. You could fill a book with all the reasons this is not-even-wrong and the implications it makes against the ideology of the person who said it.
I kind of don't want to write down any more of my thoughts here, just like you wouldn't explain a Koan. I just want to provide this to you guys to contemplate with me.
for the sake of your mental health, i beg you, give up npr. if you need the background noise like me, just subscribe to another couple of podcasts or something. i finally did it this year because i realized angrily shrieking "SHUTUPSHUTUPSHUTUP" at the radio within minutes of waking up is not a good way to start my day
Ah yes, universal programs are bad because it allows everyone, even people who don't need them, to have their basic needs taken care of, therefore leaving it vulnerable to checks notes people not having a good reason to actually get rid of them versus programs that only help poor people which can be dismissed as wasteful spending on parasites or something.
This take brought to you by NPR talking heads who... don't understand what taxes are?
Obviously it's not socialism, but UBI would be based af, and would give people a lot more time and security--with which they could be more likely to generate socialism.
The real problem I see with UBI is that it's basically privatizing welfare. The reason these new money billionaires are all for it is that they want to be the ones to decide how much and to distribute it. Cutting the government, and therefore and semblance of societal accountability, out of it. And god knows what a Musk UBI would actually look like in terms of means testing. It also has the benefit of cutting taxes even more. If they're providing UBI, why also tax them for social security and medicare and other social welfare programs?
This seems so obvious that I would assume NPR are being obtuse on purpose. They know what the fuck this is but they're just providing false opposition.
This probably ends up with me waking up even more angry and agitated than with a buzzer, but whatever
This is super smart because then you're motivated to get out of bed.
This is the same logic for why my alarm clock is on the other side of the room. Can't hit snooze from bed!
I bought an alarm app where I have to play memory and do math and shit (I can even save a barcode to scan, think toothpaste tube) to stop the alarm and I still sometimes don't leave the bed (because depression)
Why would ironically listening to bullshit and then angrily sharing it with us after being triggered is any different from just regular old listening to bullshit and then sharing it?
OP is doing liberalism.
No, I'm not angry at listening to bullshit. I truly think that this is a marvelous little Koan.
These are the same geniuses who want to means-test social security and public school.
Can you explain it for my lib brain? My first intuition is that the people who can put it in the bank, already have more than enough money they are putting in their banks and 1200 wouldnt matter much. But the further down it goes the more impact it has, even if it isnt put in a bank account or anything....
The money is taken from an undodgeable progressive income tax. So any money the rich get is taken straight back out again and then some. The one exception would be someone with no capital accumulating wealth or income but lots of assets.
So, by definition, a UBI cannot increase inequality.
It's the holistic nature of it. It really is Zen-like. What you wrote is the first layer.
Here's another: if inequality is measured by the size of your bank account, and money given to poor people will be immediately spent, then no amount of money given to poor people can ever address inequality.
Yet he says that the problem is that the money given to poor people wouldn't be adequately means-tested.
Here's another: a means-tested UBI is by definition no longer a "universal basic income" and is instead just a normal welfare program. Like the ones they've been gutting for 50 years. But they're in favor of this one and definitely not lying.
Used to be an interesting program when I was a lib. Now I can't stand it.
Yes, liberalism can never truly reckon with the contradictions imposed by capitalism, and any attempt to fix things will usually make shit worse and increase accumulation in the bourgeoisie.
