4 ms·

Consider that BI has been agreed to be a good idea by a variety of well regarded intelligent people on both sides of the political spectrum. If anything, offhan

Consider that BI has been agreed to be a good idea by a variety of well regarded intelligent people on both sides of the political spectrum. If anything, offhand dismissal is the lazy attitude here. > After feedback, BI will just raise rents a corresponding amount Basic Income is inherently redistributive. The prices of goods are inherently based on the distribution of income. It is pretty reasonable to expect the balance of prices to adjust given the income redistribution. > And income always comes with strings attached The point of BI is income without strings, so could you explain how this is impossible? > Restore sane monetary policy Could you explain what you regard as sane monetary policy?

mindslight 11y ago
(My criticism could seem like "offhand dismissal" because you're quickly reading it, not because I spent little time thinking about it.) > Could you explain what you regard as sane monetary policy? Restoring the ability for non-upper-class people to save. Specifically, ending the policy of forced inflation that prevents the lower class from saving in cash, and pushes the middle class into simulated "investments" to slow the erosion. Technological progress means prices should be getting ever-cheaper, so the effects of forced inflation get ever-worse - an economic treadmill that favors income (with accompanying requirements) over minor wealth (which can be wielded as one pleases). > The point of BI is income without strings That is the initial intention and design, but all systems evolve. BI creates an income stream at the mercy of politics, which are the biggest strings that can be attached. Imagine the same "drug users on welfare" rhetoric applied to even more people. > Basic Income is inherently redistributive But still subject to the rent treadmill, which will simply recollect the distributed money upwards to the money printers and associated artificial industries (eg by increasing the arbitrary capital cost of a place to live, raising the carrying cost aka rent). BI seems like a solution because it goes right along with the trends of centralization, but it's those very trends that are causing the economic pain in the first place!

mindslight 11y ago

(My criticism could seem like "offhand dismissal" because you're quickly reading it, not because I spent little time thinking about it.) > Could you explain what you regard as sane monetary policy? Restoring the ability for non-upper-class people to save. Specifically, ending the policy of forced inflation that prevents the lower class from saving in cash, and pushes the middle class into simulated "investments" to slow the erosion. Technological progress means prices should be getting ever-cheaper, so the effects of forced inflation get ever-worse - an economic treadmill that favors income (with accompanying requirements) over minor wealth (which can be wielded as one pleases). > The point of BI is income without strings That is the initial intention and design, but all systems evolve. BI creates an income stream at the mercy of politics, which are the biggest strings that can be attached. Imagine the same "drug users on welfare" rhetoric applied to even more people. > Basic Income is inherently redistributive But still subject to the rent treadmill, which will simply recollect the distributed money upwards to the money printers and associated artificial industries (eg by increasing the arbitrary capital cost of a place to live, raising the carrying cost aka rent). BI seems like a solution because it goes right along with the trends of centralization, but it's those very trends that are causing the economic pain in the first place!