4 ms·

So let's say you give 1 bar of gold each to a group of 50 year olds, and 1 gold bar each to a group of 12 year olds. Each group is now equally wealthy and coul

by awt 10y ago

So let's say you give 1 bar of gold each to a group of 50 year olds, and 1 gold bar each to a group of 12 year olds. Each group is now equally wealthy and could each produce a cathedral of the same quality?

DougWebb 10y ago
Yes, they could each hire a cathedral builder for 50 gold bars.
ThrustVectoring 10y ago
No, because money is not wealth. Owning money is equivalent to being considered to be owed something by society at large. Each group is roughly equally capable of trading that debt for the real goods and services they wish to receive in order to consider society's obligation satisfied. They're going to get different things, of course, but that's a side issue.
- awt 10y ago
  In that case, wouldn't you say though that if you receive money without working for it, you aren't really owed anything by society at large? Is it possible to transfer the "having done work" from one person to another? And no, investing does not fall into this category.
  - dragonwriter 10y ago
    > In that case, wouldn't you say though that if you receive money without working for it, you aren't really owed anything by society at large? One perspective on UBI is that it is compensatory payment to those harmed by factors which enable greater aggregate economic performance at the result of concentrating returns in a narrower group and driving down real wages for the masses.
    - awt 10y ago
      I'm fine with it as long as it is voluntary.
  - ThrustVectoring 10y ago
    No? There's no distinction in my mind between having money and being owed the value of that money in real goods and services. Like, it's not a moral matter, more like an accounting identity. People who have money are owed things, and the debt can be resolved by exchanging said money for the things the money-owners want. This works not because people who own money "deserve" to get things, but because this is how society has decided to keep track of who should get things - that is, by paying for those things.

by awt 10y ago

DougWebb 10y ago

Yes, they could each hire a cathedral builder for 50 gold bars.

ThrustVectoring 10y ago

No, because money is not wealth. Owning money is equivalent to being considered to be owed something by society at large. Each group is roughly equally capable of trading that debt for the real goods and services they wish to receive in order to consider society's obligation satisfied. They're going to get different things, of course, but that's a side issue.

awt 10y ago
In that case, wouldn't you say though that if you receive money without working for it, you aren't really owed anything by society at large? Is it possible to transfer the "having done work" from one person to another? And no, investing does not fall into this category.
- dragonwriter 10y ago
  > In that case, wouldn't you say though that if you receive money without working for it, you aren't really owed anything by society at large? One perspective on UBI is that it is compensatory payment to those harmed by factors which enable greater aggregate economic performance at the result of concentrating returns in a narrower group and driving down real wages for the masses.
  - awt 10y ago
    I'm fine with it as long as it is voluntary.
- ThrustVectoring 10y ago
  No? There's no distinction in my mind between having money and being owed the value of that money in real goods and services. Like, it's not a moral matter, more like an accounting identity. People who have money are owed things, and the debt can be resolved by exchanging said money for the things the money-owners want. This works not because people who own money "deserve" to get things, but because this is how society has decided to keep track of who should get things - that is, by paying for those things.