Simply injecting money into a certain strata doesn't work, for the same reason a state cannot just print money to magically elevate people out of poverty. Prices adjust over time, and before long you are stuck in the same situation with the only differences being that the price of basic needs is elevated and everyone is paying more taxes, which actually puts more people below the poverty line.

But even if it did work, how is "pacifying" the poor even remotely relevant?

If the poor are so pissed off at the government that they need to be "pacified", that's probably a good signal that they shouldn't be pacified.

Simply injecting money into a certain strata doesn't work, for the same reason a state cannot just print money to magically elevate people out of poverty. Prices adjust over time, and before long you are stuck in the same situation with the only differences being that the price of basic needs is elevated and everyone is paying more taxes, which actually puts more people below the poverty line. — Tzeentch

Well, supply and demand would adjust over time; but you have a point if its about inflation. Inflation would rise; but, with an adjustment (or lag as they call it) to supply, then maybe prices would return to normal or slightly elevated over time.

But even if it did work, how is "pacifying" the poor even remotely relevant? — Tzeentch

Well, during Nixon's term, communism was at it height and quite possibly conservatives in the US were trying to outdo whatever promises of supplies for the poor in socialist countries to be countered with UBI by Nixon's own team of advisers. In this strategic aspect (from the point of view of any capitalist socioeconomic system), then this strategic aspect would seem to be relevant at the time of Nixon's presidency.

Nowadays, there are other reasons for some talk about UBI especially by CEO's from Silicon Valley like Elon Musk, regarding Artificial Intelligence and job losses due to it.

Nowadays, there are other reasons for some talk about UBI especially by Silicon Valley's CEOs own opinion regarding Artificial Intelligence and job losses due to it. — Shawn

In that context it sounds like an awful idea.

People becoming chronically reliant on modern governments is asking for trouble.

I give it exactly one crisis before "universal" is replaced by "conditional".

If socialism wants to be effective at reducing poverty, it should focus on creating jobs and keeping the prices of basic needs low.

UBI does neither, and seems like an economic Trojan horse to me.

This is a quite different topic, but related: Who, in a given society, tends to revolt first: the lumpen proles at the very bottom of society, or the dissatisfied skilled workers who participate in a system where they have something substantial to lose?

I don't see welfare recipients, the homeless, the long-term unemployed who are not looking for work and not collecting benefits of any kind--the lumpen proles at the bottom--revolting. It seems to me more likely that workers who are several rungs up the economic ladder (identifying as working class) are the group likely to revolt. Some of these people think of themselves as "middle class" because of their material acquisitions, but a lot of the so-called middle class are just comfortable working class people.

Real middle class people are very much part of the administrative system and are not likely to revolt (because they would be one of the main targets of revolution).

SO, I don't think UBI is intended to prevent a revolt of the masses, it's to keep them minimally contented. It's a nuisance to manage their discontent and unhappiness, not a major threat. Groups that are any sort of real threat to the establishment are not bought off with a basic income. They are confronted and attacked by the police.

In any volatile situation, where revolt could grow out of riot, the police shoot to kill. lumpen proles (like George Floyd) have been treated pretty harshly by the police when they get out of line. It's not an aberration, it's policy.

I've heard that Andrew guy talking about how productivity increases when UBI is introduced. I imagine his case study was a small town. I wonder what would happen in a demographically diverse area, such as a big city.
I can't imagine it doing terrific in a place like NYC or London. The city of Berlin itself is a tax drain in Germany, where more money comes in than comes out.

One thing I hear a lot being argued in favor of UBI, is that people experience less financial pressure.

However, in a healthy society that is not a role the government should take on. In a healthy society, people form social bonds with friends, family and their wider community that provides them with a much more personal and robust safety net.

Atomization (also mistakenly termed 'individualism'/'individualization') is a result of these types policies, because they seek to replace social bonds with government surrogates.

It turns people isolated, needy and dependent on government, which (needless to say) isn't a desirable situation at all.

If socialism wants to be effective at reducing poverty, it should focus on creating jobs and keeping the prices of basic needs low. — Tzeentch

How does socialism create jobs? Are you talking about government jobs?

I couldn't tell you, since I'm not much of a socialist myself.

Atomization (also mistakenly termed 'individualism'/'individualization') is a result of these types policies — Tzeentch

Sounds a bit reductive, no? The world is much more complicated than that. At the same time, were the issues being discussed much better for societies that are less atomized, perhaps in the past? Not sure about that. Seems a distraction from the issue at hand imo. I am not entirely sure ideals like this are reliable just as the notion of the American Dream never was.

I didn't mean to imply these policies were the only cause of atomization, but I believe they certainly are a big contributor.

Social structure is underpinned by needs. The nanny state seeks to fulfill those needs with the purpose of making the individual less reliant on other individuals, but thereby making them more reliant on the state.

This is seen as a desirable form of emancipation, which in my opinion it isn't.

UBI would be a rather extreme manifestation of the nanny state.

The reason I point it out is because atomization is often blamed on individualism, when it is in fact collectivism that causes it, as in the process of binding the individual to the state ("collective") it breaks apart social structures.

I don't think UBI is intended to prevent a revolt of the masses, it's to keep them minimally contented. It's a nuisance to manage their discontent and unhappiness, not a major threat. Groups that are any sort of real threat to the establishment are not bought off with a basic income. They are confronted and attacked by the police.

In any volatile situation, where revolt could grow out of riot, the police shoot to kill. lumpen proles (like George Floyd) have been treated pretty harshly by the police when they get out of line. It's not an aberration, it's policy. — BC

:100: :fire:

Socialism, i.e. collective ownership of the means of production, is merely an instrument. You would still need to determine what the goal is.

Furthermore, mere government ownership of the economy does in itself not guarantee that everyone has an income. It only guarantees that customers have nowhere else to go, if they don't like existing supply.

There are many forms of socialism:

Marxist socialism (internationalist goals), National socialism (racial goals), Trade-union socialism (better known as fascism), social democracy (which is rather a form of capitalism).

You would still need to figure out a way to get people to work in the context of universal basic income. Most people only work because they have to. Without a production of goods and services to buy, money is essentially worthless.

Housing cost would also be even more inflationary than today. Renters would use their universal basic income to outbid each other. So, the money would probably largely end up in the pockets of landlords. It would also have a strong pull effect on illegal immigration.

Universal basic income is so inflationary that it won't be able to cover the cost of living.