3 ms·

"Take an IPhone - you find a variety of technologies - each one was created by some government grant... The collective production of wealth, which is then priva

by platz 10y ago

"Take an IPhone - you find a variety of technologies - each one was created by some government grant... The collective production of wealth, which is then privately appropriated.. it's very easy to start thinking of basic income as a dividend that goes to the collective that was responsible for collectively producting the wealth." "We need to create a system whereby society stakes a claim to the returns to aggregate capital, and this claim becomes an income stream that goes to everyone. I don't see why my children and your children have a right to a trust fund [or] why Paris Hilton has a right to a trust fund, when nobody else does, or very few people do. Think of basic income as a trust fund for all our children - to be financed by dividends from our aggregate capital, which was after all, created collectively." https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B1eOVU61mZE&feature=youtu.be&t=11m12s https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B1eOVU61mZE&feature=youtu.be... - Varoufakis

objectivistbrit 10y ago
Since WW2 most basic research has been funded by governments, but prior to WW2, the industrial revolution happened without state funding. Varoufakis' argument is that since the state has been taxing the productive to fund research, that gives it a moral right to tax the productive some more. Paris Hilton obviously didn't earn her money, but her parents chose to give it to her, and millions of people chose to stay at Hilton hotels. If you assume ordinary citizens have a right to the money they earn, you have to grant Paris the same right to her trust fund. (Which is going to be invested or spent anyway). There's no consistent way to assert the right to violate property rights, without abolishing property altogether.
- platz 10y ago
  I'm not sure things are as zero-sum as you imply - he's not saying Paris can't have her trust fund. > There's no consistent way to assert the right to violate property rights, without abolishing property altogether. Is this a false dichotomy? It seem like defining it as a 'violation of property rights' that 'abolishes property altogether' renders things completely implausible by pushing it to it's extremes.
- shkkmo 10y ago
  > Varoufakis' argument is that since the state has been taxing the productive to fund research, that gives it a moral right to tax the productive some more. Regardless of if the research done prior to WW2 was funded privately or publicly, that knowledge is part of our shared culture heritage. The fact is, regardless of how well they run their hotels, the Hiltons could not be where they are without the travelers who pay to stay at their hotels. Without the government regulation, infrastructure and security that makes such travel safe and easy there would not be the market for the Hiltons to have made their money in. The government has a critical responsibility for keeping our shared economy healthy, growing and stable. Taxation to do this is not a moral RIGHT, but a moral RESPONSIBILITY. You sound like you think we'd do OK with no taxes, and thus no government. That is more idealistic and unrealistic than even the most ardently blind arguments for BI.
  - platz 10y ago
    one note about Taxation. He's careful about using that word because he doesn't want the money to go federal coffers that the state can spend as they see fit. It almost has to be a side-channel that doesn't use the normal tax machinery - which is the talk of 'dividends' and such.
    - shkkmo 10y ago
      That is a solid point. The institution should definitely be more akin to the Federal Reserve than to the congressional budget process.
  - objectivistbrit 10y ago
    The government is needed to enforce the laws. This does not mean the goverment needs to redistribute wealth, regulate business or manage the economy. A government which stuck to this role could be funded by tax rates of about 5-8%. My ideal society would have said funds made by voluntary donations. This is a far-off ideal, but it is achievable - unless you think humans cannot form a society without coercion.
    - noobermin 10y ago
shkkmo 10y ago
Varoufakis is one of my modern political heroes. I particularly like the point he makes at 16:14: "The right to turn down a job is essential to a well functioning labor market"..."to have a genuine right to turn down a job, you must have an alternative, an outside option, because desperate people will accept to do desperate things".
macspoofing 10y ago
Because "trust fund kids" is something to aspire to. Having nothing to do day-in-day-out, really messes with you. Not everyone, but on average. It's an open question if society can handle it. In the short-term it will evoke bitterness in those that work against the able-bodied that choose not to (remember the 'food-stamp surfer'?)
- platz 10y ago
  he addresses this at 15:30 (we can still censure idlness, but we don't need to throw them onto the street / let them starve). also previously states we need to overturn the narrative that giving to the "undeserved" (the beach bums) is something we should avoid.

by platz 10y ago

objectivistbrit 10y ago

Since WW2 most basic research has been funded by governments, but prior to WW2, the industrial revolution happened without state funding. Varoufakis' argument is that since the state has been taxing the productive to fund research, that gives it a moral right to tax the productive some more. Paris Hilton obviously didn't earn her money, but her parents chose to give it to her, and millions of people chose to stay at Hilton hotels. If you assume ordinary citizens have a right to the money they earn, you have to grant Paris the same right to her trust fund. (Which is going to be invested or spent anyway). There's no consistent way to assert the right to violate property rights, without abolishing property altogether.

platz 10y ago
I'm not sure things are as zero-sum as you imply - he's not saying Paris can't have her trust fund. > There's no consistent way to assert the right to violate property rights, without abolishing property altogether. Is this a false dichotomy? It seem like defining it as a 'violation of property rights' that 'abolishes property altogether' renders things completely implausible by pushing it to it's extremes.
shkkmo 10y ago
> Varoufakis' argument is that since the state has been taxing the productive to fund research, that gives it a moral right to tax the productive some more. Regardless of if the research done prior to WW2 was funded privately or publicly, that knowledge is part of our shared culture heritage. The fact is, regardless of how well they run their hotels, the Hiltons could not be where they are without the travelers who pay to stay at their hotels. Without the government regulation, infrastructure and security that makes such travel safe and easy there would not be the market for the Hiltons to have made their money in. The government has a critical responsibility for keeping our shared economy healthy, growing and stable. Taxation to do this is not a moral RIGHT, but a moral RESPONSIBILITY. You sound like you think we'd do OK with no taxes, and thus no government. That is more idealistic and unrealistic than even the most ardently blind arguments for BI.
- platz 10y ago
  one note about Taxation. He's careful about using that word because he doesn't want the money to go federal coffers that the state can spend as they see fit. It almost has to be a side-channel that doesn't use the normal tax machinery - which is the talk of 'dividends' and such.
  - shkkmo 10y ago
    That is a solid point. The institution should definitely be more akin to the Federal Reserve than to the congressional budget process.
- objectivistbrit 10y ago
  The government is needed to enforce the laws. This does not mean the goverment needs to redistribute wealth, regulate business or manage the economy. A government which stuck to this role could be funded by tax rates of about 5-8%. My ideal society would have said funds made by voluntary donations. This is a far-off ideal, but it is achievable - unless you think humans cannot form a society without coercion.
  - noobermin 10y ago

shkkmo 10y ago

Varoufakis is one of my modern political heroes. I particularly like the point he makes at 16:14: "The right to turn down a job is essential to a well functioning labor market"..."to have a genuine right to turn down a job, you must have an alternative, an outside option, because desperate people will accept to do desperate things".

macspoofing 10y ago

Because "trust fund kids" is something to aspire to. Having nothing to do day-in-day-out, really messes with you. Not everyone, but on average. It's an open question if society can handle it. In the short-term it will evoke bitterness in those that work against the able-bodied that choose not to (remember the 'food-stamp surfer'?)

platz 10y ago
he addresses this at 15:30 (we can still censure idlness, but we don't need to throw them onto the street / let them starve). also previously states we need to overturn the narrative that giving to the "undeserved" (the beach bums) is something we should avoid.