Slashdot is powered by your submissions, so send in your scoop


Forgot your password?
Check out the new SourceForge HTML5 internet speed test! No Flash necessary and runs on all devices. ×

Comment Re:A UBI can actually foster more jobs (Score 1) 898

Comment Re:Holy flamebait batman! (Score 1) 898

UBI is a modern version of Communism and as all such schemes it will end up in destruction, misery, murder and poverty.

The countries that are 'half way there' are also either getting out of it or they are going towards self destruction, all forms of collectivism end up in economic destruction, some take longer some get there quicker.

Comment Re:Holy flamebait batman! (Score 1) 898

The only thing that has no basis in reality is the idea that UBI will lead to prosperity instead of economic destruction. I explain that UBI is a modern version of Communism and as with all forms of collectivism this one too, will eat itself and the people will end up miserable, oppressed, some will be dead and everybody will be poor.

Comment Re:Ellen Pao (Score 1) 635

Who pays the debts? USA pays the debts? First of all there is no law requiring that USA pays all debts. Secondly USA does not pay any debts, it prints money and buys Treasuries off of the market through the Fed, it does not pay debts, it returns paper that is being devalued with each newly printed (or electronically created) note. Returning paper that is devalued is the opposite of 'paying debts'. USA should pay debts though but it is impossible because USA debts are completely unpayable by the USA economy and can never be paid. Thus USA debts will be defaulted as they were *multiple times*, one very obvious time was when Nixon defaulted on the gold payable by the Fed for US dollars held by foreign governments. This happened in 1971. If you don't understand that USA doesn't pay debts at all that's not my problem, that's your public government education fault.

Defaulting on the unpayable debts in an honest fashion through restructuring and some form of a reduced payment program would be preferable for the USA economy to the collapse based on inflation (money printing) that US government is choosing to go with.

User Journal

Journal Journal: UBI is the modern version of Communism 1

In the last year or so there have been numerous stories on /. on the subject of Universal Basic Income (UBI). Many so called 'libertarians' left a number of comments on how they are supporting UBI because they think it might be more efficient than other forms of welfare.

Comment Re:basic income (Score 1) 898

I guess you didn't actually read anything I wrote, I explained it in the comment. Why should I repeat myself if you are not paying attention?

The State will have to confiscate the means of production otherwise the producers will not trade in the country where they own the means of production. That's because trading is a *2 way street*, both sides have to *produce* something of value to the other side.

With a large portion of the population not producing anything but being subsidized from the income of the producers the producer will lose twice (2 times) in that transaction.

The first time the producer will lose when the government will confiscate his productive output in form of various taxes to pass that money to the UBI recipients. The second time the producer will lose when the UBI recipient will come to the producer to give the producer *HIS OWN MONEY* in exchange for the goods that the producer produced.

That's not a trade at all, that's not 'buying'. Thus the producer will not trade in the country where he is taxed for the benefit of the UBI recipients. The producer will trade in countries where people will produce something *IN EXCHANGE* for what the producer offers.

This means that the producer will not be taxed in USA, just like Apple cannot be taxed on the income made outside of the country. BUT for the UBI to exist somebody has to be taxed and it has to be *net producer* who must be taxed, the net UBI recipient cannot be taxed for this to work (unless you figured out a way to repeal the natural laws of conservation of energy, mass and momentum and thus invented a perpetual motion machine).

I don't know how else to explain it to you better than this, which is pretty much the same thing I said in the comment you responded to. You might be trolling with that question of-course, in which case I tip my hat.

Ta ta.

Comment Re:I hope Apple Pay will die (Score 1) 284

First point about fraud - not true in the U.S. at least If the merchant follows the banks procedures and system and the card is approved, its off the hook. If the merchant commits a fraud or whatever then the bank will deny payment and/or try to recoup payments made. The fee a merchant pays does not change depending on whether you are using Apple Pay, Android Pay or a physical credit card. So, accepting Apple Pay costs the merchant nothing extra nor does it cost the customer anything extra. The decision by the merchant to accept any credit card payments is the point when the card companies transaction fees come into effect. Apple Pay's fee comes out of the set fee charged by VISA, MasterCard, etc.

Comment Re:I hope Apple Pay will die (Score 1) 284

Apple Pay does not use the card nor require its presence during the transaction. It does not pass or use your credit card number either. The code it uses is specific to the device and it's relationship to accounts and you is known only to the issuing bank. Any system that relies on the card and a pin still exposes your account number and your identity, does it not?

Comment Re:I hope Apple Pay will die (Score 1) 284

There apparently isn't much bank resistance as Apple has been pretty successful signing them up. The chip and pin method is better than the magnetic strip we in the US have relied on so their fraud rates are much lower so yes the incentive is less; however the Apple Pay set up is still much more secure than chip and pin. When it starts to be used more on-line it will have much greater benefits for banks. On-line fraud and theft of information is a huge problem everywhere.

Comment Re:I hope Apple Pay will die (Score 2) 284

Please try to pay attention. You don't pay anything nor does the merchant. The transaction fee paid by the merchant remains the same regardless of whether you use a card or Apple Pay. The fee is paid by the banks which they are willing to do because its a lot cheaper than the huge losses due to fraud they've experienced with credit cards.

Comment Re:I hope Apple Pay will die (Score 2) 284

You don't give "all your banking information" to Apple. You scan your credit card and its sent to the bank that issued it. They approve it and your phone stores a code they bank created for the card installed on that device. Your data doesn't go to Apple. If you start by using the card you have for iTunes, of course Apple already has that. So Apple doesn't have your info nor does your device. Your device stores your code in a secure enclave on the chip. The OS can't get it either. Just the bank that issued the card. That's as secure as it gets.

Slashdot Top Deals

Someday somebody has got to decide whether the typewriter is the machine, or the person who operates it.