48 ms·

I am seeing this response to many/all of the wealth disparity articles. I personally don't think this idea is properly analysed. I think people should rally for

by negamax 11y ago

I am seeing this response to many/all of the wealth disparity articles. I personally don't think this idea is properly analysed. I think people should rally for extension of basic services as human rights. Internet, electricity, food etc instead of a cheque at end of the month from the state. That seems more sustainable and works out as common infrastructure. Like roads for e.g. That will alleviate lives of many and will provide security, without creating any access and mismanagement in the system

netcan 11y ago
I'm also not a fan of Basic income being used as a catch-all answer and I'm not a fan of BI, as it's described in a lot of recently popular future looking leftists camps. But I am a proponent of BI generally. If we want post earnings wealth distributions (I don't think we can have our modern system of economy and governance without it), direct & simple redistribution is the best answer. Centralised provision of food is a terrible idea. It would destroy the economy of food production. Why do this? How is it better economically, more just or more effective to give people food or food stamps than it is to give them money to buy food?
- negamax 11y ago
  I get you. I am definitely not in the camp of central provisioning of food. But how's that different from BI? BI is pretty much central provisioning of resources. Yes it's money. But that money translates to resources. That's the point I was trying to make when mentioning about beefing up common infrastructure to a point where it's next to free to a degree. In other words, basic income should be replaced with basic minimalist modern life style. Giving people money, creates all kind of access and may even cause more disparity. What if people spend all the money on video games or alcohol or foreign holidays. Won't it be better instead of basic income we aim for better basic life for everyone?
  - riprowan 11y ago
    I think the argument generally is: people will spend most efficiently and effectively when they spend the money on themselves, based on their own unique needs. This lowers the cost on everyone else, while providing maximum benefit to those in need.
    - negamax 11y ago
      It's a wishful thinking. If anything, people are worst money managers. Free money will simply be used to turn on pleasure centers. Ofcourse, there will be many who will channel the money wisely (80:20). But if argument is that basic income can be used for better life, why not simply give that better life as defacto infrastructure.
      - sokoloff 11y ago
        Is governmentally planned/allocated spending contrary to the wishes of the individuals really better? If someone gets more pleasure/utility from X instead of Z, why should we force them to consume Z instead of X? Where's the line? If Z becomes effectively a government mandate, would the commercial manufacture of Z become more or less efficient and competitive? Would you rather get $100 cash, $100 Amex gift card, or a $100 Home Depot gift card as a gift? (Each of those can be used to buy something later in the list, but not the other way, or at least let's pretend that's the case.) In no case are you better off holding something later in the list.
        RHSeeger 11y ago
        The problem I see is that you're ignoring the real world decision making problems many people have. Lets assume David owns and lives in a house where the roof has a leak, one which is slowly causing damage to the structure. David can't afford to repair his room. We have the option of David 1) giving David $1,000 or 2) giving David a $1,000 credit with a roof repair company or 3) repairing David's roof for him. For the vast majority of Davids, all three options are equal as far as getting the roof fixed, but (as you noted) 1 > 2 > 3 as far as utility (since David could find someone to repair his roof for less, or he could learn to repair it himself). The problem is that there is some subset of David's that will just spend the $1,000 on going out to dinner instead. David enjoys going out to dinner at nice restaurants and it's worth more to him (instant gratification, etc). However, next year at this time, David's entire house structure has rotted down and now he needs us to repair the whole thing. That's going to take $50,000 of our money. We want a solution that is the most beneficial for the general case ($1,000) while still preventing the cases where the cost to us (society) isn't negatively impact. There's a lot of factors that go into that decision 1) What percentage of Davids would spend the $1,000 on going out to dinner and let their house rot? 2) What percentage of Davids would trade the $1,000 credit for $800, go out to dinner, and let their house rot? 3) How much are we willing to be negatively impacted by Davids with poor decision making skills? If it costs us $1,000 to repair the house later, we've only wasted $1,000 by giving him the cash at the start. If it costs us $50,000 to repair the house later, that's a much bigger impact. 4) How much are we willing to negatively impact the Davids with good decision making skills (reducing the utility of what they get from us) in order to mitigate the negative impact of the the bad-decision-Davids? 5) At what point are we willing to cut off the Davids with bad decision making skills? Are we willing to say "Here's the $1,000 dollars you need. If we come back next year and your house has rotted, you get to live in a cardboard box"? 6) lots of other questions... There's a LOT of factors that going into making the "right" decision, if there even is one.
- pbhjpbhj 11y ago
  You give food so that you solve problems of hunger instead of, for example, creating a problem of drug dependent hungry people.
tluyben2 11y ago
That seems like a good thing: call it infrastructure which much be a basic right of all and then define what that is: education, housing, healthcare, food, electric, roads, public transport, clean water, internet, 2g and up, and so on. But then how much of this all? And can we resist the capitalist 'solutions' taking over? Like making healthcare available by mandatory acceptance by insurers and making insurance mandatory is not the way I think as someonr who lived in different countries and systems: once insurers are involved all breaks down as their job immediately is make money so all are worse off besides them. I went from mandatory private healthcare (completely subsidized if you make too little) to public and public is just better and more natural. My doctor does not care about cost and I get better healthcare because of it which is a basic human need imho. Public transport made private is a joke in the countries I saw it. It was bearable when it was a public service: privatized it is the same or worse 'quality' but insanely expensive. So infrastructure indeed to me is better than BI however not if it is not clear how and within what boundaries it is handled.

by negamax 11y ago

netcan 11y ago

I'm also not a fan of Basic income being used as a catch-all answer and I'm not a fan of BI, as it's described in a lot of recently popular future looking leftists camps. But I am a proponent of BI generally. If we want post earnings wealth distributions (I don't think we can have our modern system of economy and governance without it), direct & simple redistribution is the best answer. Centralised provision of food is a terrible idea. It would destroy the economy of food production. Why do this? How is it better economically, more just or more effective to give people food or food stamps than it is to give them money to buy food?

negamax 11y ago
I get you. I am definitely not in the camp of central provisioning of food. But how's that different from BI? BI is pretty much central provisioning of resources. Yes it's money. But that money translates to resources. That's the point I was trying to make when mentioning about beefing up common infrastructure to a point where it's next to free to a degree. In other words, basic income should be replaced with basic minimalist modern life style. Giving people money, creates all kind of access and may even cause more disparity. What if people spend all the money on video games or alcohol or foreign holidays. Won't it be better instead of basic income we aim for better basic life for everyone?
- riprowan 11y ago
  I think the argument generally is: people will spend most efficiently and effectively when they spend the money on themselves, based on their own unique needs. This lowers the cost on everyone else, while providing maximum benefit to those in need.
  - negamax 11y ago
    It's a wishful thinking. If anything, people are worst money managers. Free money will simply be used to turn on pleasure centers. Ofcourse, there will be many who will channel the money wisely (80:20). But if argument is that basic income can be used for better life, why not simply give that better life as defacto infrastructure.
    - sokoloff 11y ago
      Is governmentally planned/allocated spending contrary to the wishes of the individuals really better? If someone gets more pleasure/utility from X instead of Z, why should we force them to consume Z instead of X? Where's the line? If Z becomes effectively a government mandate, would the commercial manufacture of Z become more or less efficient and competitive? Would you rather get $100 cash, $100 Amex gift card, or a $100 Home Depot gift card as a gift? (Each of those can be used to buy something later in the list, but not the other way, or at least let's pretend that's the case.) In no case are you better off holding something later in the list.
      - RHSeeger 11y ago
        The problem I see is that you're ignoring the real world decision making problems many people have. Lets assume David owns and lives in a house where the roof has a leak, one which is slowly causing damage to the structure. David can't afford to repair his room. We have the option of David 1) giving David $1,000 or 2) giving David a $1,000 credit with a roof repair company or 3) repairing David's roof for him. For the vast majority of Davids, all three options are equal as far as getting the roof fixed, but (as you noted) 1 > 2 > 3 as far as utility (since David could find someone to repair his roof for less, or he could learn to repair it himself). The problem is that there is some subset of David's that will just spend the $1,000 on going out to dinner instead. David enjoys going out to dinner at nice restaurants and it's worth more to him (instant gratification, etc). However, next year at this time, David's entire house structure has rotted down and now he needs us to repair the whole thing. That's going to take $50,000 of our money. We want a solution that is the most beneficial for the general case ($1,000) while still preventing the cases where the cost to us (society) isn't negatively impact. There's a lot of factors that go into that decision 1) What percentage of Davids would spend the $1,000 on going out to dinner and let their house rot? 2) What percentage of Davids would trade the $1,000 credit for $800, go out to dinner, and let their house rot? 3) How much are we willing to be negatively impacted by Davids with poor decision making skills? If it costs us $1,000 to repair the house later, we've only wasted $1,000 by giving him the cash at the start. If it costs us $50,000 to repair the house later, that's a much bigger impact. 4) How much are we willing to negatively impact the Davids with good decision making skills (reducing the utility of what they get from us) in order to mitigate the negative impact of the the bad-decision-Davids? 5) At what point are we willing to cut off the Davids with bad decision making skills? Are we willing to say "Here's the $1,000 dollars you need. If we come back next year and your house has rotted, you get to live in a cardboard box"? 6) lots of other questions... There's a LOT of factors that going into making the "right" decision, if there even is one.
pbhjpbhj 11y ago
You give food so that you solve problems of hunger instead of, for example, creating a problem of drug dependent hungry people.

tluyben2 11y ago

That seems like a good thing: call it infrastructure which much be a basic right of all and then define what that is: education, housing, healthcare, food, electric, roads, public transport, clean water, internet, 2g and up, and so on. But then how much of this all? And can we resist the capitalist 'solutions' taking over? Like making healthcare available by mandatory acceptance by insurers and making insurance mandatory is not the way I think as someonr who lived in different countries and systems: once insurers are involved all breaks down as their job immediately is make money so all are worse off besides them. I went from mandatory private healthcare (completely subsidized if you make too little) to public and public is just better and more natural. My doctor does not care about cost and I get better healthcare because of it which is a basic human need imho. Public transport made private is a joke in the countries I saw it. It was bearable when it was a public service: privatized it is the same or worse 'quality' but insanely expensive. So infrastructure indeed to me is better than BI however not if it is not clear how and within what boundaries it is handled.