4 ms·
In a sense we already have 'a basic income'. It's called 'social welfare state' and causes innumerable individuals to migrate across the globe. With that come t
by novalis78 10y ago
In a sense we already have 'a basic income'. It's called 'social welfare state' and causes innumerable individuals to migrate across the globe. With that come tectonic shifts in culture and (we shall see) a loss of a lot of factors that made these systems work in the first place. Not quite unlike Ancient Rome, which too had a sort of basic income, triggering massive changes to its initial fabric of success. Don't get me wrong, I could see capitalism's endgame to be a form of utopia but I'd be curious to know how something like that would actually work and not destroy the generating forces of abundance unless it was introduced gloabally at once and / or in some form organically, I.e in a sustainable way that will not dislodge half the population of the planet.
- ZeroGravitas 10y ago"It's called 'social welfare state' and causes innumerable individuals to migrate across the globe." Do you have facts to back this opinion up? It seems like other factors e.g. not dying in a war, not being persecuted for various reasons, not having the opportunity to make money with your skills are today (and have been historically) primary drivers of immigration. So why do you think "social welfare state" rather than "rule-of-law-based liberal capitalism" is the bigger draw? Is it because it's something you already want rid of?
- novalis78 10y agoBecause when refugees are interviewed in Germany they say their parents sent them to collect 'all that free money' that they hear about from their neighbors and friends who came before. If it was just rule of law you don't have to walk across 10 other nations that all have rule of law but a less generous welfare system.