This article explains it very well.
Governments need to legislate to prevent this kind of collusion and bullying.
On the other hand, those banks and financial institutions that decide to assess a loan applicant's application based on sensible business facts rather than totalitarian socialist wokeness, could make a killing.
Where do you think this will end up?
Robin
"A group of whistleblowers has asked three funding agencies for a misconduct investigation into a series of 22 research papers, many of them on the effects of ocean acidification on fish behavior and ecology.
The request rests on what they say is evidence of manipulation in publicly available raw data files for two papers.
The disputed papers' main authors --Philip Munday (a marine ecologist) and Danielle Dixson (a U.S. biologist)-- emphatically deny making up data, and James Cook University, Townsville, in Australia has dismissed the fabrication allegations against one of them after a preliminary investigation. But multiple independent scientists and data experts who reviewed the case flagged what they said were serious problems in the data sets."
You can read the full article here.
It's disappointing that even scientists lie. It seems that nobody is willing to tell the truth these days. You can't trust the media, governments, scientists, who can one trust?
Robin
As people become sillier and sillier, it's amazing how the leaders of countries seem to be infected the most. Now, William Hague, a British Politician is discussing how UK troops could be used to stop countries cutting down rainforests and drilling for oil.
No problem with sovereign rights, property ownership, we'll just have a war to stop people doing what we think is right.
Where does it end?
To read the full story, click here.
Robin
UBI is the concept of paying every citizen a certain amount of money regularly. They don't have to work or contribute in any way to get it, it just arrives in their bank account as a gift from the government. Or more correctly, the taxpaying public since governments don't have money.
In the European trials, it was found to be a disincentive for people to work. Why work when someone will provide sufficient to live on?
In the not-too-distant future, robots will take over many jobs now done by human operators. We've seen this in supermarkets where self-serve areas are provided. The days when young people washed your car window and filled your car with fuel are long gone. Robots have been used in manufacturing for decades already.
Now, robots are becoming more efficient with artificial intelligence and will progressively take over more and more jobs. This is expected to lead to greater unemployment.
Most governments in most countries don't have sufficient revenue via taxation to provide all the services people expect already; health, education, infrastructure and so on. How would they have sufficient to simply give everyone money?
I don't think it makes sense to give money to people who don't need it.
If our government addresses the UBI idea, I'd prefer to see it provide a Topup for people earning below a certain level.
That way, the lower-wage earners would get a boost to help them pass the poverty line. There would need to be some safeguard to ensure people didn't quit working to get the benefit.
Maybe at the end of a fiscal year when we submit our tax returns to the Australian Taxation Office, anyone with an income below a specific level would be given sufficient funds to bring them up to the predetermined level.
That approach would cost far less than simply giving everyone money.
It would be lovely for some kind government to simply give us an amount of money weekly, but it's not really feasible.
Robin
