[luckylion]

> The only problem is spending money on external goods which can be managed by taxing imports.

But you need the import (of money, specifically) to run the city for the people who live there on UBI. I don't believe that UBI will ever be self-sustaining, but I'd love to see an experiment that tries to prove me wrong. For now, they're all like "free energy machines" that are plugged into a wall socket: outside funding paying for the UBI. But that doesn't help, because you need self-sustainability, or you'll need an external work-force slaving away for your luxury not to work. And I'm pretty sure that external work-force won't be too happy about that.

[mvn9]

Why would you have to import money? You can have your own currency within the city. You only need external money for external goods and services.

The premise of UBI is that it creates a more productive society. If there is no possibility to be self-sustained, why implement it? However, if there is the possibility, then funding is possible because you can sell future surpluses for external current currencies and get the city going.

As far as I know, there have been ancient UBI societies, like Persia and Egypt where everybody received free grain.

Don't forget that luxury is the tool of kings to show their power. On one hand, kings live in luxury, but they still keep working. On the other hand, not working stops being a status symbol and a luxury if common people do it by default in a UBI society.

UBI is like heat pumps: you don't use the energy of the wall socket to create heat or cold, but you use it to move energy from one area to another. That way, you create a net surplus. With UBI, people stop worrying. All that mental energy is used to create value. The insight needed for a UBI city is the ability to tax it.

[luckylion]

> Why would you have to import money? You can have your own currency within the city.

Money is a placeholder for value, not just paper. Like the "free energy machine" that's plugged into the wall socket: the power that flows from the wall socket is what drives it.

> The premise of UBI is that it creates a more productive society. If there is no possibility to be self-sustained, why implement it?

There is a possibility, there's a possibility for humans evolving telepathy. It's just not a certainty, and the probability isn't too high. But it's easy to test: get a bunch of people together that believe in it, make an agreement to pool some amount of resources and then pay out a UBI to each person. If it raises productivity, it's a big win for anyone involved.

If "free grain" is a "UBI society", then we're far beyond UBI already. In most of Europe, you'll receive an apartment, food, clothes, utilities, transportation, tv etc. That's 2020 reality. As far as I understand, the point of UBI is to go beyond that because these basics are seen as limiting.

> With UBI, people stop worrying.

Primarily, they stop working. We already have too many who are quite alright with the welfare they receive and prefer not to work. I really don't want to expand the number, because it just increases the work load for the rest.

[mvn9]

>then we're far beyond UBI already. In most of Europe, you'll receive an apartment, food, clothes, utilities,

Where can you live that life without being an outcast? People in need get Basic Income, but it is not Universal. You have to trick the system if you want to get it indefinitely.

>As far as I understand, the point of UBI is to go beyond that because these basics are seen as limiting.

Of course they are limiting. That's why UBI works. As you have analysed correctly, you would have to enslave other people if you want more.

Thus, people don't stop working, because there is always something that isn't covered by UBI.

>Primarily, they stop working. We already have too many who are quite alright with the welfare they receive and prefer not to work. I really don't want to expand the number, because it just increases the work load for the rest.

Don't forget that you need people to decide who is eligible for welfare and who isn't. In an UBI society, those people could do something else and reduce the work load for everybody else. Basic resources are cheap and get cheaper with more automation. At one point, you will be able feed the entire world from the work of a few persons.

[luckylion]

> Where can you live that life without being an outcast?

Germany, for example. Yeah, sure, on paper you have to be "looking for work", but it's really on paper only.

> In an UBI society, those people could do something else and reduce the work load for everybody else.

They won't though. I live in a mixed income apartment complex, including lots of people on perpetual welfare with no desire to change their situation.

I keep reading about UBI from well-meaning people who explain how it will totally work and I believe that they actually believe that. I also believe that they have no experience with the people that live off of government transfers not because of necessity but because of laziness. It's enough for a nice apartment (50+ square meters for one person), a flat screen TV, an X-Box, a smart phone, internet, food, cigarettes and the occasional alcoholic beverage, healthcare etc included obviously. And that's enough for quite a significant amount of people. They won't "make the world better" if you give them more money, they'll just buy a bigger TV and throw more parties.

> At one point, you will be able feed the entire world from the work of a few persons.

Possibly. Let's talk about UBI when we're there. We're not, we're not close, and we won't be for decades, unless you're talking about 4 square meters per person and 2500 calories of nutrious slime with no extras. And nobody is talking about that.

Drop UBI and replace it with a job guarantee and you'll have my attention. That gets you essentially the same: everybody has enough, but it doesn't come with the moral hazards. On the other hand, it also doesn't reward the lazy.

[mvn9]

>>you need people to decide who is eligible for welfare and who isn't.

>>In an UBI society, those people could do something else

I meant that the administrative layer could be used for other processes than managing welfare.

Why bother how many people don't work? There are 9 billions on this world. Even if 8 billions don't work, you can still run societies with 1 billion.

>we're not close,

Check how many people have to work on farms to create food. We are at a point where providing basic stuff is possible.

>unless you're talking about 4 square meters per person and 2500 calories of nutrious slime with no extras.

Why not? It doesn't have to be slime. Fast food, cereals, sweets, people actually crave cheap food. On the other hand, offering healthy cheap slime with all nutritions, if you look at soylent, that's something people are actually paying for.

Likewise, 50 square meters don't have to be expensive.

With UBI, you cannot make scarce resources affordable to everybody. On the other hand, you can make UBI affordable by reducing the costs of basic goods. If people can live on $100 a month, in a society with an average pre-tax income of $3000, then one working person can take care of 10 non-working citizens.

>Drop UBI and replace it with a job guarantee and you'll have my attention.

There is no way that a government can create meaningful jobs. How cruel is a society where 90% of people only earn the money to buy nutrious slime after having worked on a meaningless job for 8 hours? Allow those people to stay at home and come up with better ways to spend their time. Even if they just play video games, that's less corrupting for the entire society than forcing them to shovel gravel from one ditch into another. They are essentially prisoners and a society is best judged by the way it treats its prisoners.

Life will be better for everybody because the people who work, they know that it is their choice.