3 ms·

Please re-read what I've written: >Economists have looked at this and concluded that the spread of market institutions like private property rights has acceler

by aminok 10y ago

Please re-read what I've written: >Economists have looked at this and concluded that the spread of market institutions like private property rights has accelerated poverty reduction, because of the effect it has on capital allocation and incentives. This isn't specifically about BI. My point is that you're wrong to claim economic systems don't matter. You're applying very little critical thinking and intellectual integrity to this debate. What do you think you'll accomplish by lying to others and yourself? >You linked christian science monitor and an economist fluff peice fta: "take a bow capitalism," yea - quality, unbiased, non-ideological sources here. /s Both are considered highly credible media sources. Do you think they are lying when they state that the spread of market institutions is responsible for the largest reduction in poverty in world history? As for the TED talk, are you aware of who Paul Romer is? Do you know why he is considered credible? Did you watch the talk he gave, and the explanations he provided for why poverty has declined in various countries?

thatcat 10y ago
Your explainations of capitalism being great for various countries were tangental to any analysis of BI in america. That capitalism reduced poverty is both obvious and unrelated to BI. No one is suggesting removing personal property rights. Think about BI like the banking and auto bailouts, inject cash in a dead spot to keep the economy stable using quantative easing. I didn't and won't watch your video source. I dont think cs and economist are lying just that one has christian in the name which says somthing about their preexisting political bias and I'm not lying to anyone, the economist article was definitely a fluff peice which even the most highly credible media institutions can produce.
- aminok 10y ago
  BI is a form of forcible redistribution that weakens private property rights, which is a key market institution, so pointing put that stronger market institutions are better for wealth-generation/poverty-reduction is absolutely relevant to the topic of what the expected outcome of instituting BI is. Putting your head in the sand and being optimistic is not going to make the potential problems of forcible redistribution go away. When the evidence suggests that a particular idea is a bad one, even if that idea seemed wonderful at first, a d even if that idea is wildly popular, it has to be discarded, for the sake of society.

by aminok 10y ago

thatcat 10y ago

Your explainations of capitalism being great for various countries were tangental to any analysis of BI in america. That capitalism reduced poverty is both obvious and unrelated to BI. No one is suggesting removing personal property rights. Think about BI like the banking and auto bailouts, inject cash in a dead spot to keep the economy stable using quantative easing. I didn't and won't watch your video source. I dont think cs and economist are lying just that one has christian in the name which says somthing about their preexisting political bias and I'm not lying to anyone, the economist article was definitely a fluff peice which even the most highly credible media institutions can produce.

aminok 10y ago
BI is a form of forcible redistribution that weakens private property rights, which is a key market institution, so pointing put that stronger market institutions are better for wealth-generation/poverty-reduction is absolutely relevant to the topic of what the expected outcome of instituting BI is. Putting your head in the sand and being optimistic is not going to make the potential problems of forcible redistribution go away. When the evidence suggests that a particular idea is a bad one, even if that idea seemed wonderful at first, a d even if that idea is wildly popular, it has to be discarded, for the sake of society.