In what insane world is businesses "pushed away" by people having money to spend ?
- in the world where that money is taken from that very business, so that the business does not see positive trade balance, it sees a negative one. In the world where the value of money itself is destroyed via schemes of this nature because the money is not backed by any actual inherently valuable property, either commodity or even just labour.
For an equitable trade to happen between two sides, both sides have to receive something of value that at least matches what the sides are giving up. For you to understand this forget about cash, think barter.
2 sides only benefit when both end up with something they did not have before that they willingly traded for something they owned. You have a pig to trade and the other guy has a few bags of wheat, the market tells you that the exchange is equitable and you trade, both are left better off.
If one side has nothing to offer (is not producing anything) it's not actually trading, it's subtracting from people who are trading.
Person A runs a wheat farm, person B runs a pig farm, they can trade.
Person C does nothing, but lets say he steals a pig from person B. Now person C can trade some of the meat with person A.
However this theft subtracted from the productive capacity of the pig farmer and it never added anything to the productive capacity of the thief. The wheat farmer still gets the meat in exchange for his wheat, but if he went directly to person B and omitted the thief altogether it would be better for the real market participants (A and B), they have something to gain by trading with each other, it's a long term deal.
The theft by person C subtracts from the productive capacity directly, by removing the productive output (the pig) from the producer and it creates inefficiency where the pig farmer now has to start thinking about protecting his property where he didn't have to do that previously.
The business owners that protect their property by outsourcing, automation, by buying politicians are correct to do what they are doing, they are being stolen from.
people who could never DARE risk it before suddenly are able to open their own businesses - and employ their neighbours.
- nonsense. I never 'dared' to open a business, I just did, I put my savings on the line and used it to do so. But to say that UBI would allow somebody to start a business and even to pay something to an employee? Pure nonsense, with what money would they 'pay', they don't have anything *more* than the neighbour, after all, both are on UBI, which is supposedly only large enough not to starve in the streets. If it is large enough to open a business you are really advocating the type of wealth redistribution that makes even less sense economically, you are reducing the productive power of the existing valuable, viable businesses so much that others can spend that wealth doing whatever comes to their heads without really bothering with the consequences of the risk they are taking, because that's not their money.
People don't unnecessarily risk their money. Even the most idiotic collectivists would agree that if the government didn't guarantee the losses for the banks the banks wouldn't be taking risks with their own money. People tend to be careful with the money they *earned* as opposed to the money they got for free.
- aha. I would argue that every government program ends up being a bad outcome, every one of them. Every one of them ends up doing the type of harm they are purporting to reduce. The war on drugs was won by drugs. The war on poverty was won by poverty. The war on terrorism seems to be lost to terrorists, they win because the individual liberties are in the craper and the government has only grown. Minimum wage laws create unemployment, public single payer health care destroys health care for all in the long term, it can eventually even bring entire systems down because the money can never stop flowing from individual to the government, and the governments always needs more of it, never less, pushing out and destroying businesses in the process.
s ago now to deal with the massive poverty the Industrial Revolution caused
- aha. So the Industrial Revolution caused so much poverty that now the population is 7 times greater than what it was before the beginning of industrialization.
The real fraud is in destruction of individual liberties that come out of government under the guise of 'helping' the poor and you are trying to sell that fraud here.