UBI Failed and Everyone Is Pretending It Didn't

No deep dive from me, just an interesting 'mystery' and wondered if this makes sense to anyone.

Every anti-freedom action is designed to fail by simple truth that anti-freedom action cannot be maintained as people's desire to get what they want grows and overcomes restrictions on freedom. Kinda like trying to stop water flow. It just goes in other direction, around or crushes the obstacle.

Would Jesus have supported UBI? From a philosophical standpoint? Probably. Jesus inherently believes that humans are Godlike and have intrinsic value. UBI does the same. When Jesus fed the multitudes, that was kind of a redistribution of wealth similar to UBI. Everyone was fed, and no one was unhappy.
Jesus wants everyone to be happy and have their needs taken care of, regardless of if they benefited the market. That being said, Jesus was also in favor of work and serving others. Again, UBI is kind of a similar construct.

It can work. In fact Republicans have a bill that would bring it in called the fair tax act and democrats keep voting against it and misrepresenting what it is. I wouldn't suggest passing it without strong controls on immigration though. 

So you think those studies weren't conclusive?

So I guess my position is a bit more nuanced and I likely have a liberal defi ition of UBI. The fair tax has been widely studied and has a built in stipend I see as UBI like and it seems to work. Have not had a chance to look at your video yet but had it on my Playlist prior to seeing your post

A big problem with Ubi and poverty in general is that it fails to account for the varying levels of budgeting mismanagement and poor lifestyle choices. While it seems romantic to believe all poverty is a simple income calculus, failing to address these factors simply means poverty is never alleviated. Comparing the amount of money spent on the war on poverty since 1965 and the corresponding poverty rate should be evidence enough to confirm this. Delayed gratification is a major source of wealth generation and wealth security at all income levels. That's a cultural value that Ubi can never provide. In fact, it may well be an incentive against developing it.

From Mein Trumpf,  “The danger represented by the Poor today finds expression in the undeniable dislike of

He would tell people to open their wallets and provide for those unable to provide for themselves.

Let's not conflate this with support for a clientelist robber state where inalienable property rights (which is to say, the right to choose for one's self what to do with one's rightful property in this life) are trampled on roughshod by a regime installed by an imported majority.

Being told "No, you can't have other people's stuff without their consent" is not the same as genocide. Nice try though.

This should've been obvious in anterospect.

UBI is free cash with no strings attached. You don't have to spend it on rent or repaying student loan debt or on health insurance. It's just...free cash. It offers a powerful and sudden temptation to indulge. And by the time the money runs out, you just may find that you've picked up some bad habits that leave you financially worse off in the long run than you were when you started.

Add to this general ignorance. Some years ago, I was asked by my sister what I'd do if I had $30,000. I answered that you couldn't get by for life on $30,000 or buy a house with it, so I might as well just blow the money on something that I would enjoy. She pointed out that I could invest that $30,000 and reap huge dividends in just a few years, and I felt like an idiot. I think I've learned my lesson from that conversation, but there are a lot of folks out there whose default assumptions when it comes to money are like mine back then. Putting aside character defects (e.g. poor impulse control), many decent or semi-decent people would simply draw blanks when they asked themselves what to spend their UBI check on. So they'd buy a sports car: an asset that depreciates rather than appreciates over 5-10 years and costs a lot to insure or repair. Or some other crap that doesn't do anything for them, even if it doesn't hurt them per se.

I agree with all of that. I've known poor people and several homeless people (which I think we can agree is severe poverty when it's not by choice).

They were all homeless/very poor for a reason. I paid one guy $4000 to do a job. He did it well, he worked hard, but in two months he was asking to borrow $20 again. Some people just don't know how to invest, and I don't mean invest in stocks, just something as simple as buying a beat up car and some clothes so they can look for jobs farther than they can walk.

At the same time the line between poverty and just getting by is shifted severely by government theft and threats. I'm sure the large majority of people currently homeless would have somewhere to live without it. I am not saying they'd be rich or comfortable, it it wouldn't be nearly the crisis it is.

You can't separate UBI from the policy of theft which makes it possible (in any extant society). The question of whether it hurts more than it helps was always a decided "yes" in my opinion but I am surprised that these studies couldn't even find an average improvement in net worth. I expected at least a small positive feedback.

If true this reinforces my belief that the only real way to help these people is to get them the hell out of the culture and environment they've been raised in. Get away from cities and dense populations where it's all about favors, enemies, and allies. I know many would not take it, they are not people who have a lot of ambition or self-control; but I would at least try and offer individual farms (plots where enough food could be grown for themselves, not for profit) and then give them a minimal UBI.

Of course I am not talking about the mentally disabled, they've always been a problem and always will be; at least until a true medical cure is found.