5 ms·

Maybe people really do have an innate sense of ethics that tell them if they're receiving free money, it means it's being taken from somewhere else.

SolarNet 10y ago
Well that sense would be wrong. Since this is charity. Also it seems like the problem is assuming strings are attached, so more like survival instinct.
- bsbechtel 10y ago
  Do the Kenyans really know it's charity? Also, if BI is ever to be implemented as policy, coming from the government isn't charity.
Noseshine 10y ago
The world is not a zero sum game and handing out free money is a proven concept - as long as the recipients are big firms and banks... you already forgot the "financial crisis" and the entire last decade? Money does not work in such simplistic ways except for on a tiny scale, for example within the circle of family and friends. Already when you take out a credit your sentence becomes untrue: Debt is created by commercial banks out of thin air - you yourself "pay" for it, because the "debt" promise you give is worth as much as the money you get (plus interest). When a government hands out "free money" the promise is not direct but indirect but essentially the same: They think that the money will "pay for itself" in the end through economic activity that would otherwise never happen. This is the same thing that happens with every single credit, only that then the responsibility for "repayment" is only one step removed instead of an indefinite amount. In this context (about the nature of modern money, not UBI), before anyone wants to tell me money for credit comes from other people's savings, I recommend reading "Money Creation in the Modern Economy" (2014) written by the Bank of England. I link to the Guardian article by Graeber, the actual PDF is linked near the beginning of that article though, but it has a summary on page one where it already supports the main points of the article. https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/mar/18/truth-money-iou-bank-of-england-austerity https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/mar/18/truth-... > It's this understanding that allows us to continue to talk about money as if it were > a limited resource like bauxite or petroleum, to say "there's just not enough money" > to fund social programmes, to speak of the immorality of government debt or of public > spending "crowding out" the private sector. What the Bank of England admitted this > week is that none of this is really true.
- wcummings 10y ago
  >The world is not a zero sum game This is only true as long as there is economic growth.
  - witty_username 10y ago
    Any trade is non zero sum, infact it's beneficial for both people. If I trade one pepe meme for 1$, it's mutually beneficial and each person got something better.
    - bsbechtel 10y ago
      Taxing people and redistributing the money (as BI or other) is not trade, however, and it is zero sum.

SolarNet 10y ago

Well that sense would be wrong. Since this is charity. Also it seems like the problem is assuming strings are attached, so more like survival instinct.

bsbechtel 10y ago
Do the Kenyans really know it's charity? Also, if BI is ever to be implemented as policy, coming from the government isn't charity.

Noseshine 10y ago

The world is not a zero sum game and handing out free money is a proven concept - as long as the recipients are big firms and banks... you already forgot the "financial crisis" and the entire last decade? Money does not work in such simplistic ways except for on a tiny scale, for example within the circle of family and friends. Already when you take out a credit your sentence becomes untrue: Debt is created by commercial banks out of thin air - you yourself "pay" for it, because the "debt" promise you give is worth as much as the money you get (plus interest). When a government hands out "free money" the promise is not direct but indirect but essentially the same: They think that the money will "pay for itself" in the end through economic activity that would otherwise never happen. This is the same thing that happens with every single credit, only that then the responsibility for "repayment" is only one step removed instead of an indefinite amount. In this context (about the nature of modern money, not UBI), before anyone wants to tell me money for credit comes from other people's savings, I recommend reading "Money Creation in the Modern Economy" (2014) written by the Bank of England. I link to the Guardian article by Graeber, the actual PDF is linked near the beginning of that article though, but it has a summary on page one where it already supports the main points of the article. https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/mar/18/truth-money-iou-bank-of-england-austerity https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/mar/18/truth-... > It's this understanding that allows us to continue to talk about money as if it were > a limited resource like bauxite or petroleum, to say "there's just not enough money" > to fund social programmes, to speak of the immorality of government debt or of public > spending "crowding out" the private sector. What the Bank of England admitted this > week is that none of this is really true.

wcummings 10y ago
>The world is not a zero sum game This is only true as long as there is economic growth.
- witty_username 10y ago
  Any trade is non zero sum, infact it's beneficial for both people. If I trade one pepe meme for 1$, it's mutually beneficial and each person got something better.
  - bsbechtel 10y ago
    Taxing people and redistributing the money (as BI or other) is not trade, however, and it is zero sum.