this post was submitted on 24 Jul 2026
399 points (99.0% liked)

Lemmy Shitpost

41076 readers
4563 users here now

Welcome to Lemmy Shitpost. Here you can shitpost to your hearts content.

Anything and everything goes. Memes, Jokes, Vents and Banter. Though we still have to comply with lemmy.world instance rules. So behave!


Rules:

1. Be Respectful


Refrain from using harmful language pertaining to a protected characteristic: e.g. race, gender, sexuality, disability or religion.

Refrain from being argumentative when responding or commenting to posts/replies. Personal attacks are not welcome here.

...


2. No Illegal Content


Content that violates the law. Any post/comment found to be in breach of common law will be removed and given to the authorities if required.

That means:

-No promoting violence/threats against any individuals

-No CSA content or Revenge Porn

-No sharing private/personal information (Doxxing)

...


3. No Spam


Posting the same post, no matter the intent is against the rules.

-If you have posted content, please refrain from re-posting said content within this community.

-Do not spam posts with intent to harass, annoy, bully, advertise, scam or harm this community.

-No posting Scams/Advertisements/Phishing Links/IP Grabbers

-No Bots, Bots will be banned from the community.

...


4. No Porn/ExplicitContent


-Do not post explicit content. Lemmy.World is not the instance for NSFW content.

-Do not post Gore or Shock Content.

...


5. No Enciting Harassment,Brigading, Doxxing or Witch Hunts


-Do not Brigade other Communities

-No calls to action against other communities/users within Lemmy or outside of Lemmy.

-No Witch Hunts against users/communities.

-No content that harasses members within or outside of the community.

...


6. NSFW should be behind NSFW tags.


-Content that is NSFW should be behind NSFW tags.

-Content that might be distressing should be kept behind NSFW tags.

...

If you see content that is a breach of the rules, please flag and report the comment and a moderator will take action where they can.


Also check out:

Partnered Communities:

1.Memes

2.Lemmy Review

3.Mildly Infuriating

4.Lemmy Be Wholesome

5.No Stupid Questions

6.You Should Know

7.Comedy Heaven

8.Credible Defense

9.Ten Forward

10.LinuxMemes (Linux themed memes)


Reach out to

All communities included on the sidebar are to be made in compliance with the instance rules. Striker

founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] Blue_Morpho@lemmy.world 22 points 4 days ago (4 children)

We all hate Musk but isn't Musk suggesting Universal Basic Income?

[–] ZeroGravitas@lemmy.dbzer0.com 47 points 4 days ago (6 children)

No. That would be achievable through reallocation of funds, e.g. from tax revenue. If the quote is correct, that's just increasing monetary mass, aka printing money. Which is Inflationary AF.

That being said, I find it hard to believe that a CEO in this day and age wouldn't have at least this basic understanding of how the economy works. This being Musk, there's no need to invent extra character flaws. The man has plenty to go around.

[–] Bustedknuckles@lemmy.world 25 points 4 days ago (1 children)

A cynical view is that he does understand and is just shitposting and muddying the water around UBI

[–] Junkers_Klunker@feddit.dk 4 points 4 days ago

I find that quite plausible.

[–] cavitationfetishist2@quokk.au 15 points 4 days ago* (last edited 4 days ago)

find it hard to believe a CEO wouldn't understand

Being a CEO is an actual disease that causes measurable cognitive decline. These are literally the dumbest fucks on the planet.

[–] gibmiser@lemmy.world 6 points 4 days ago

Its a cover. Saying populist ideas without any intention to support them or help them come about is just a way to hide his real actions under a veneer.

[–] Bonsoir@lemmy.ca 3 points 4 days ago* (last edited 4 days ago) (1 children)

Well, the text says "you could actually get deflation because there will be so much abundance produced". There is some reality where this is true, as increasing the monetary mass would do nothing if the economy (the amount of goods and services produces) increases proportionally. But I wouldn't bet on a universal basic income increasing the country's production.
Also, only the rich and upper-middle class would suffer from inflation. Poor people's financial situation would still improve.

[–] unmagical@lemmy.ml 4 points 4 days ago* (last edited 4 days ago) (1 children)

The printing money wouldn't be enough. You'd also have to legislate what people are not allowed to do after the money printing begins (like rent hikes equal to the average household size * the ubi check).

[–] Bonsoir@lemmy.ca 1 points 4 days ago

Which you already have to do, because there already is inflation. I don't see how a UBI would change anything if the inflation stays the same.

[–] EvilBit@lemmy.world 2 points 4 days ago (1 children)

The only way this makes sense, and I guarantee he’s not advocating for this, would be to print and distribute so much money to the lower and middle classes that the upper class wealth is diluted and inequality is reduced. But the havoc that would wreak outside of the US is something I can’t even speculate on.

But even that wouldn't do a thing to them - their value isn't stored in money, so any inflation would only hurt the people who's value is.

[–] Blue_Morpho@lemmy.world -1 points 4 days ago* (last edited 4 days ago) (2 children)

How do you get UBI without issuing checks from the Treasury. There isn't enough tax money that can be taken from Billionaires to sustain UBI.

Not just tax a percentage, but take every penny of every Billionaire in the US. Net worth of all US billionaires is 8.4 Trillion.

270 million US adults.

= 31k per person. Once.

That's 31k one time. Then there is no money for next year.

[–] UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world 9 points 4 days ago* (last edited 4 days ago) (1 children)

Net worth of all US billionaires is 8.4 Trillion.

The productive capacity of the accumulated capital owned by US billionaires exceeds $31k/person/year.

The "Net Worth" figure is deceptive, because it's the exchange value and not the use value. Sitting on tens of millions of vacant real estate units, many of which are underwater on their purchase price, shows up as far less on an individual balance sheet than the material benefit of not being homeless accrues to a homeowner.

[–] Blue_Morpho@lemmy.world 1 points 4 days ago (1 children)

The productive capacity of the accumulated capital owned by US billionaires exceeds $31k/person/year.

If that was true then taking all their capital and distributing it would be more than $31k/person/year for each individual receiving their share of the 8.4 Trillion.

[–] UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world 1 points 4 days ago (1 children)
[–] Blue_Morpho@lemmy.world 1 points 4 days ago (1 children)

So it doesn't change anything. You get $30k and yes that $30k is worth more because it can generate maybe $3k in investment income for you a year. It's still only $30k.

[–] UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world 1 points 3 days ago (1 children)

So it doesn’t change anything.

It does, in fact, change things

[–] Blue_Morpho@lemmy.world 1 points 3 days ago (1 children)

I honestly don't know what you are arguing about. If someone has $100 it is technically worth more than $100. If they give you that $100 you now have that $100 which is also technically worth more than $100. It's the same $100 + unspecified future value either way.

If you argue the $8.4 trillion in net worth of Billionaires is worth more than the $8.4 T, then if that $8.4 was taken from them it is also worth more.

[–] UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world 1 points 3 days ago

If someone has $100 it is technically worth more than $100.

If someone buys a house for $500k it's worth $500k. But it's also a place to live, which makes it invaluable to a person without a home.

If the value declines to $400k then the net value is -$100k. But, again, the house has value as a place to live that humans need. Being underwater on your home isn't the same as being homeless. And owning a million homes that lose value is very different than being broke.

Use value and exchange value are different things. And saying you have $8.4T on paper means something very different than saying you control properties, equities, and IP that other people need, but can't have, because you're hoping to flip it for a profit.

[–] Catoblepas@lemmy.blahaj.zone 8 points 4 days ago (1 children)

Nobody said it had to be over $2500/month?

[–] Blue_Morpho@lemmy.world 1 points 4 days ago (1 children)

Minimum wage in many US cities is $15/hr which is $30k/year.

Even at federal minimum wage of $7.50, that means not just taxing Billionaires at 100% but taking everything will give you 2 years of UBI before there is no money.

[–] Catoblepas@lemmy.blahaj.zone 11 points 4 days ago (1 children)

Minimum wage in many US cities is $15/hr which is $30k/year.

So? UBI isn’t a wage for work. It could be $300/month and that would still be a huge boon to struggling people.

[–] Blue_Morpho@lemmy.world 2 points 4 days ago (1 children)

The UBI baseline is supposed to be $12000 per year. The premise is it covers food and shelter.

[–] Catoblepas@lemmy.blahaj.zone 7 points 4 days ago (1 children)

So why did you inflate it to nearly 3x that amount while arguing about how it can’t work because it’s too expensive? $1000/month is still a lot of money for people.

[–] Blue_Morpho@lemmy.world 1 points 4 days ago (1 children)

Because baseline food and shelter is much more expensive in many cities where 80% of the population lives. That's why minimum wage is $30k in major cities.

[–] Catoblepas@lemmy.blahaj.zone 3 points 4 days ago

But again, this isn’t a wage… people can still make extra money on top of UBI. The goal isn’t to make nobody ever work again. Why pretend you can’t do it because it doesn’t translate to fully automatic luxury gay space communism?

[–] Macchi_the_Slime@piefed.blahaj.zone 11 points 4 days ago (1 children)

I just looked over the interview. it was fucking WEIRD man. He's kind advocating for a UBI? Basically he's saying that AI is going to give us the whole Star Trek "post scarcity" future thing and like money is simultaneously going to be useless, but that how that could happen is the Treasury could just give people checks and inflation wouldn't be an issue because the AI would be creating so much abundance. It's genuinely hard to parse

[–] ChanchoManco@lemmy.zip 4 points 4 days ago (1 children)

It's part of the grief, hyping AI and his robots while promising that he's gonna give money after they replace the workforce. Guess what happens next?

Yeah, I remember what this fuck did to California's high speed rail.

[–] Not_mikey@lemmy.dbzer0.com 4 points 4 days ago* (last edited 4 days ago) (1 children)

Yeah, billionaires like UBI because they can pretend they care about the plebs, but in reality they know it will just cause inflation, which there stocks won't be effected by, and push even more money into the stock market to protect against inflation, inflating there portfolio.

The plebs will then realize it's not working and then be skeptical of any program designed to help the poor. UBI is a poison pill for the left.

[–] explodicle@sh.itjust.works 1 points 4 days ago

Musk isn't suggesting a UBI in the form that has already been tested successfully without inflation. Like any government expense, the funds are typically raised through taxes.

[–] NottaLottaOcelot@lemmy.ca 3 points 4 days ago

How is a guy who says too much was spent on food stamps and foreign aid going to like the budget to produce a livable UBI? It’s basically selling people a pipe dream to justify cutting current social services, and then we can colour us all shocked when UBI either never rolls out or is like $5 per person