When did Buzzfeed come to Newgrounds?
Reviews for "Why Basic Income?"
First off, nice animation as usual. Thumbs up to you there.
Did you do any real research (or is this not your talk? A bit confused here) on this topic? Did you just cherry pick from sources (linked in the description) that were obviously in favor of this absolute propaganda/talking points? This is the same as the "90% some of percent of all scientist agree that climate change... bla bla bla" what about the scientists that weren't polled? what about the evidence that is not in favor of your argument? I get it, you're (and so are a lot of the pro-UBI people) compassionate and obviously poverty is bad. Everyone can literally agree here. How do we solve the potential automation problem? Where should these affected people move to (career wise). These are fair questions. Raising taxes and printing more "funny money" is rarely ever the answer (besides "well... country X does it so... we good bois". Something to think about. Research all areas of your topic. Don't just produce propaganda videos that only validate your position (confirmation bias). This will help you fortify your argument and not seem like you're coming off as some government PSA drone. Debate is good and the pursuit of truth/reason will get us to where we need to be one day (hopefully). Again, nice animation. Obviously this topic/position is left leaning which I'm sure a lot of NewGrounds is by demographic (age) and interest (animation/games). Keep up the great work/talent!
Welfare is giving money to the less educated and the most lazy, and taking it away from the people who actually work. We have generations of people being raised without parents and a lot of foodstamps.
And another thing, poverty does not cause crime, crime causes poverty.
adamanimates responds:
Your view is common, yet contradicts evidence.
"Using data from the Edinburgh Study of Youth Transitions and Crime, the Edinburgh university researchers found that poverty is a strong driver of violent offending amongst young people. However, systems of youth and adult justice, far from tackling violence and lifting young people out of poverty, serve instead to entrench poverty, thereby reproducing the very conditions in which violence can flourish."
https://www.criminallawandjustice.co.uk/features/Link-Between-Poverty-and-Crime
"rObOtS aRe TaKeInG oVeR" I fucking doubt that
Decent animation and nice production quality. Fundamentally flawed premise: If everyone is riding in the wagon, who is going to pull the wagon?
1.You say that automation will destroy jobs, then later claim it will help people be more entrepreneurial. What?
2. Also flawed reasoning: the incentive is stripped from the would-be-entrepreneur. Why work when he can have things handed to him? Also, why bother becoming wealthy when his wealth will be taken from him? You are dooming the creative thinker to a life of mediocrity.
Nothing about nature is "equal"; you can't defy the laws of reality. All redistributive economics either fail (see Venezuela) or are currently riding off the success of capitalist countries (see Iceland).
adamanimates responds:
1. It sounds like a contradiction when put like that, but both things are true. My point is that people aren't lazier when you give them money. You were told that by the rich so they wouldn't have their taxes go up. There still will be jobs for a long time to come, and we need innovation and the basis for people to build on their ideas. One example of what I mean by entrepreneurial is that in the study in India, some people from poor villages were able to buy fishing gear and thus have a way to support themselves when they couldn't before.
Automation is also absolutely destroying jobs at the same time. All the repetitive, systematic stuff is getting automated as fast as it can. Maybe In the super long term, even that fisherman in India won't have a job because some machine catches the fish and sells them cheaper than he can afford to live on. What would you suggest then? I'd say that a portion of the massive gain in productivity should go to keeping people alive. In the case if everyone is riding in the wagon, robots are pulling the wagon. Until we get to that point, most of us pull with increasing help from machines.
2. Would you stop working after earning $12,000 in a year? That's the most common number thrown around for Basic Income. It could start lower than that, as it already does in the current system working in Alaska (about $2000). The work disincentive is a fiction. There's a lot of evidence about this, and it's all in the links up there. Basic Income is designed to avoid the current welfare trap, which is when people earn more by staying home instead of working. Once they start a job, a big chuck of their benefits disappear and it's not worth it. Basic income gradually tapers off the benefits until you make a middle-class salary, so there's no reason to not try and better your situation.
As for your ideas about redistributive economics, they are grounded in ideology and probably can't be changed by anything I type. But hey, I'll give it a shot. I think for Venezuela you have the cause and effect backwards. Venezuela's social programs are mostly funded by oil money, which accounts for 95% of exports. So what happens when oil prices go down? I don't see how it's the fault of the average Venezuelan for what the Saudis are doing with oil prices.
You're using the old arguments against communism, but Basic Income is a pretty capitalist idea. It was supported by who I imagine is one of your heroes, Milton Friedman. He wanted a way to simplify the massive bureaucracy of the welfare system. Turns out Basic Income is a more efficient way to do that. It almost was implemented in the States in 1970, but Democrats blocked it.