Scott Santens Profile picture
Mar 9 5 tweets 3 min read
Neck and neck right in South Korea counting the votes for president with a win by @Jaemyung_Lee (in blue) meaning they could be the first industrialized country with universal basic income. Image
With over 75% of the vote now counted, @Jaemyung_Lee has fallen behind Yoon, the conservative candidate. A joint exit poll by KBS, MBC, and SBS television stations in South Korea predict that Yoon will end up winning. It's so close though that the winner may not be known today. Image
With over 88% of the votes cast, channel KBS has called the election for the incel-backed right-wing populist party candidate. It also appears that the 3rd place progressive female candidate served as a spoiler thanks to the lack of ranked-choice voting.…
This appears to be yet another election result that cries out for the implementation of ranked-choice voting to eliminate the spoiler effect. It also adds further support to @AndrewYang's belief that RCV is necessary first in order to then make universal basic income possible.
It's official. The universal basic income candidate has conceded defeat. There will now likely be no UBI in South Korea's immediate future. The winner is the conservative worried about the national debt and who prefers the usual more targeted approaches.

• • •

Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to force a refresh

Keep Current with Scott Santens

Scott Santens Profile picture

Stay in touch and get notified when new unrolls are available from this author!

Read all threads

This Thread may be Removed Anytime!


Twitter may remove this content at anytime! Save it as PDF for later use!

Try unrolling a thread yourself!

how to unroll video
  1. Follow @ThreadReaderApp to mention us!

  2. From a Twitter thread mention us with a keyword "unroll"
@threadreaderapp unroll

Practice here first or read more on our help page!

More from @scottsantens

Mar 11
How it started:
Universal basic income is a great idea, but the rich will never support it because it frees us from having to work for them to live.

How it's going: The rich have long conspired to implement UBI so that the government can control us by threatening to turn it off.
This stupid fucking conspiracy theory has always just been another stupid fucking conspiracy theory, but with the rise of QAnon and the pandemic, along with all other conspiracy theories, it's spread through the population of those who desperately need UBI for financial security.
Its popularity seemed to pick up thanks to the World Economic Forum suggesting a "Great Reset" and now it seems to be gaining popularity thanks to the response in Canada by Trudeau that involved freezing the bank accounts of those linked to the protests.…
Read 11 tweets
Feb 21
This comment is made frequently enough that I wrote an article for my UBI FAQ about it years ago. A UBI is not UBI if it can be withdrawn like this, and we don't see this with existing programs like Social Security. Seniors don't feel afraid to speak out.…
"We can't have universal health care. It won't work because the government will just refuse to provide it to people who protest the government."

Yeah sure. Countries all over the world have that problem, right? Universal health care is a bad idea because citizens fear losing it?
It's so frustrating. Conservatives should be crying out for UBI right now *because* of its unconditionality. Some Republicans almost even connected the dots recently when they carved out exceptions for unemployment so that they could refuse to get vaccinated and still get UI pay. Image
Read 6 tweets
Jan 27
What if everyone spent every waking hour making really cool things? How cool would that be? Well consider also that there would be no hours spent enjoying anything created because everyone would be creating not enjoying.

Are the things actually cool if no one gets to enjoy them?
6-day weeks used to be normal. Then 5-day weeks became normal. It's past time for 4-day weeks to become normal. There's just so much stuff being created, and increasingly by machines. Humans need more time to actually enjoy all the stuff and life itself. We need to shift gears.
But what about all the jobs going unfilled? Paying people more per hour for fewer total hours per week would make many jobs more attractive, and the people filling those jobs would be less exhausted and more productive. Plus they'd have more time as consumers to create more jobs.
Read 11 tweets
Jan 11
Interesting threat. Basically, Mitch is like "Look here, everyone. If you make it easier to debate and vote on legislation, we're going to start debating and voting on legislation, and none of us here want that, right?"…
Mitch is framing it like a bad thing, for Congress to actually debate and vote on bills, because some votes could make legislators look bad to their constituents, but the lack of that is exactly the problem. If a lawmaker votes yes on unpopular laws, then voters SHOULD fire them.
Right now, elections have less teeth, which is helping drive polarization. People just vote for their favorite team, and because of gridlock, people win based on what they say. If they start actually doing unpopular things, that could change who people actually vote for.
Read 4 tweets
Nov 6, 2021
I chatted with @JENFL23 the other day about UBI, MMT, ranked-choice voting, the @Fwd_Party, and about incentives in general and how what @AndrewYang is trying to do is to get people excited about reforming systems with reforms that don't typically excite.

Getting people excited about the possibility of starting to receive $1,000 a month is a lot easier than getting people excited about the prospect of being able to vote for more than one candidate, and ranking them to convey preferences. But the former may just require the latter.
To those not steeped in politics, especially those turned off by it, it's really challenging to get people excited about reforming a process they aren't interested in, but we need to try, and that's what Yang is attempting to do. He's trying to mobilize the disengaged.
Read 6 tweets
Oct 21, 2021
We must break out of our current understanding of taxing to spend that limits our ability to spend, when the only real limits we have are our real capacity limits. The issue isn't lack of money. It's what to do in addition to spending to manage inflation.… Image
We are watching what happens in real-time of this belief that we can't somehow afford $3.5 trillion in spending, despite being our own currency issuer. Means-tested stuff gets more means-tested. Stuff gets axed. Other stuff expires faster. It's the wrong discussion to be having.
We shouldn't be arguing over what to save and what to cut and what to trim. The debate should be on how to best design the programs, and then how to best manage the impacts of that spending on the economy. What kind and amount of taxes? How to best improve supply chain issues?
Read 4 tweets

Did Thread Reader help you today?

Support us! We are indie developers!

This site is made by just two indie developers on a laptop doing marketing, support and development! Read more about the story.

Become a Premium Member ($3/month or $30/year) and get exclusive features!

Become Premium

Don't want to be a Premium member but still want to support us?

Make a small donation by buying us coffee ($5) or help with server cost ($10)

Donate via Paypal

Or Donate anonymously using crypto!


0xfe58350B80634f60Fa6Dc149a72b4DFbc17D341E copy


3ATGMxNzCUFzxpMCHL5sWSt4DVtS8UqXpi copy

Thank you for your support!

Follow Us on Twitter!