Yes so the part you're correct on. Milton Friedman's negative income tax is slightly different than ubi however if you look at the core idea of it. It still involves people receiving income without labor and production. So no matter how you look at it. No matter what these people are supplied with funds they don't have. if they don't work they still get these funds. So similar to ubi. A person who just wanted to receive ubi. Would receive ubi. That seems to be the suggestion that people would just take the ubi and not work.

The negative income tax presents the same ideology. If you don't work you receive x amount of funds regardless. So is that much different than ubi? I think it's pretty much the same idea with the exception if you work you don't receive it. Now ubi under most plans would be opt in. So means if a person earns enough already they can opt out of ubi either way. Some will and some won't however i think it's not the best statement to point out differences in the negative income tax when it still involves people receiving funds they haven't earned.

"Name 1 welfare program in the world that has generated more productivity from the group in question, I've yet to see one".

Yes but your statement here isn't really a solution. productivity has nothing to do with lack of employment and health crisis. So whether the question is just in idea for people to be productive and work isn't really what the problem is. We also suffer from bouts of massive unemployment. Obstruction from work such as in the case of the pandemic. Automation and job displacement. Productivity is another conversation. We're talking about how we measure the well being of citizens in a society.

For example i don't know where you from or what your laws are like. However in the United States where i live. Under the constitution there is a clause that talks about the well being of citizens. Now this clause is interpreted many different ways. Some interpret it to expand to the health of citizens is the government responsibility such as in the case of ideas like universal healthcare. I could say healthcare is not the issue of the government and everyone should be productive and go pay for their own healthcare. However due to the vague interpretation of that clause some have expanded the idea to go well your well being is a constitutional right almost.

So the reason all this is important is because when you mention ideas like productivity being synomous with what is necessary in a society or right. I'm not certain that's the right application of the role of the government and how many of us interpret what society should or should not do. In other words when you say what system offers the most productivity you're talking about numbers like what we get in gdp and that being the metric of what is a good example of a society.

The problem though is societies are much more complex than that. Like measuring just gdp is a very limited area of what serves an advanced civilization. So maybe it's not just gdp that we're interested in measuring but health and well being and happiness and family values. All these things are important to people in a society. So the idea of are you working some job in society and doing your part because some capitalistic employer wants to enslave you make money off you and not pay you enough money is the right thing to do or the right way to go.

I think it's not correct. I don't think society is really signing on for that. That's how the capitalistic mindset system or not capitalism i think i'm being a bit unfair in saying capitalism like it's wrong. i'm really saying corporatism which is wrong. We're under that model and we're confused that it's capitalism when it's really a form of neofeudalism. So i think it's wrong to tell people in a neofeudalistic system they should be forced to be enslaved by some employer trying to get rich off them and if they refuse they are irresponsible and should'nt be allowed to live eat or survive.

I think our society is much too advanced at this point for that. Our food production is good done by machines and they growing alot of food with alot of chemicals and growing bigger crops. So it's no reason to let food spoil in the name of this corporatism just so people can be profitable for nothing. It's really quite sick if you think about it. That's exactly what you all do. So no i don't agree with that.

As far as i know welfare is only bad when hardworking members of society need it or downtrodden people. When it's corporate welfare and it's bailouts.. That's noble that' decent they don't get put down like rats and told they are taking handouts. So we really are blind to many of these machinations.

We're in the 21st century now. We have 3d printers mass production .. robotics on a level i've never seen. Most of the jobs are obsolete anyway that can be done by a human with the exception of a few or soon will be. All this really is that we have is political theatre. it's not really a shortage of anything we need to live on the earth it supplies our needs it always pretty much did or we'd have died out already. This is mostly greedy unconcious and uninformed and sick people that want to fly some banner of prestige to serve their egos when nothing can serve their egos because the issue is with them. So that's the only problem lol.

This is one of the big lies right here:

"flooding capital into enough people, all you do is drive more units of currency competing for a finite amount of good and services"

We got a giant nuclear reactor out in space. It's called the sun. it's full of energy. Even the oil reserves are a lie. We got plenty of oil. I got colleagues who work for the government. That have alot of information about our oil reserves. The distribution even of something like oil is more political than about the supply line. So the idea of we're in this overly finite resource wise planet that can easily feed like 30% more people than we have is just political garbage. yes if you want to be trillionaires and billionaires.. one person can't own everything on earth and if you have those yea it's a problem for the guy who wants the only lake front property on lake tahoe. the thing though is it's kinda ridiculous for billionaires and trillionaires to even exist but thats a topic for another day.