7 ms·

If the government guarantees a basic income, you're really only guaranteed (at best) until the next election cycle. Just recently, seven years after its passing

by laser 9y ago

If the government guarantees a basic income, you're really only guaranteed (at best) until the next election cycle. Just recently, seven years after its passing, the ACA was nearly reverted, which would have kicked millions of people off government-subsidized health insurance plans.

xienze 9y ago
In the case of BI, I disagree. Politicians will see this for what it really is -- the most direct way to buy votes (by promising increased BI). It would be quite popular with both parties, I'm sure.
- bduerst 9y ago
  One party's platform is built on the fear of socialism - they will most definitely oppose this and use it to get votes, but by egging it publicly.
  - xienze 9y ago
    If we're living in a world where BI is a reality, it will be embraced. Once social programs are implemented, they're nearly impossible to remove -- see ObamaCare. Republicans have given up on going back to the old system and have, well, embraced a tweaked ObamaCare under a new name. They'd do the same with BI. "Democrats promising $30K BI? Well we're gonna do $35K!"
    - bduerst 9y ago
      This is circular logic. In order for BI to become a reality, it first must be embraced. In order for BI to be embraced, it must first be a world where BI is a reality. You keep referencing ACA, but there is currently a new bill to repeal it: https://www.lgraham.senate.gov/public/_cache/files/06822f49-b801-4d9f-95f5-d7b5406e9aa9/lyn17709.pdf https://www.lgraham.senate.gov/public/_cache/files/06822f49-...
      - TCM 9y ago
        The argument from the parent posts rely on ACA being repealed already. If the ACA does get repealed then the above arguments hold but this hasn't happened yet.
        bduerst 9y ago
        My point is that bringing up the ACA repeal is moot, either way, because it's repeal is still active and not finished.
      - xienze 9y ago
        No, in order for BI to become a reality you just need a Democrat majority to pass the legislation.
    - gehwartzen 9y ago
      The irony of course being that all the existing social programs which are "nearly impossible to remove" will have to be removed to fund the BI.
  - pc86 9y ago
    BI is the opposite of socialism when it's coupled with dismantling certain pieces of the social safety net. We don't need WIC or CHIP if we have universal BI, for example.
    - bmelton 9y ago
      That depends on a great deal of factors, I think. Even if we guarantee some sort of income floor, there will still be those who, despite that guarantee, need additional assistance. Whether it's because they have more children than the average, are irresponsible with spending, are victim to a drug habit, unexpectedly lose their jobs, or succumb to medical debt, we have to come to grips with the idea that UBI won't be a cure-all. Even if we acknowledge (and not all will) that most people who are dependent on safety-net assistance are perfectly good and responsible, depending on what the amount is, what their life circumstances are, and a myriad other factors, I don't think we can take it for granted that UBI obviates those specific-purpose programs for the remainder of those who need assistance and for whom UBI is not ideal. Put bluntly, there are people who will take the entirety of their UBI check and spend it on stupid things, and end up without money for food, or for their childrens' health. What are we to do about them?
    - bduerst 9y ago
      Yes, BI involves dismantling certain pieces of the social safety net to replace it with a social safety net. The party that opposes wealth redistribution will oppose BI.
  - LyndsySimon 9y ago
    I think you're confusing the GOP's motivations and their rhetoric. See also: their failure to repeal the ACA despite having the presidency and a majority in both houses.
    - philwelch 9y ago
      That's because the GOP isn't a party, it's a coalition of bickering factions that has chosen to prioritize winning over purity. (As opposed to Democrats, who prioritize purity over winning.)
      - s73ver_ 9y ago
        Odd, I would have flipped that statement.
  - conanbatt 9y ago
    Tbe republican party like UBI if it comes with a reduction in welfare programs. Its the democrats that have to be convinced.
josefresco 9y ago
Also, similar to the ACA, individual states can attempt to block the roll-out.
mfoy_ 9y ago
That's why I have approximately 0 faith in the pension plan my government(s) have in place. I'll save for my own retirement so I'm not high and dry when they mismanage the funds or change policies or whatever.
- zanny 9y ago
  While it is less likely, nothing is guaranteed. You assume your investments will be around until you cash them out for retirement, and they are all dependant on something not failing: * Direct stock ownership depends on the company growing, not failing, not being bought out, etc. * Mutual funds depend on the fund manager not going under / properly managing assets. * Bonds depend on state institutions honoring them. * You can't really save for retirement in a bank because their rates of return are below inflation. You lose money in banks. * Hoarding fiat is obviously bad. * Any asset you would try to store long term is subject to market volatility at the least and potential obsolescence at the worst. You simply cannot guess what anything will be worth decades from now. The current US administration knows full well that throwing tens of millions of people off insurance will probably cost them the disenfranchised working class that elected them in the first place and lose them their majorities in congress and the presidency. I fully expect them to stab themselves in the foot with this, since a lot of monied interests benefit from the absurdly inefficient default state of healthcare where many people depend on emergency rooms for all problems, but in the same vein repealing social security would destroy their voting base unless they made it a grandfathered in shutdown where the next Democratic administration could just reinstate it and nobody on benefits would lose benefits.
  - ThrustVectoring 9y ago
    >Mutual funds depend on the fund manager not going under / properly managing assets. Err, no. This is not a risk of properly structured mutual funds. The manager does not directly hold assets - they make decisions about what to do with the assets, which the custodian executes. And the fund's management has no recourse to the assets held by the custodian. How the fund goes under is if the assets they hold go to zero value. There's still execution risk, though, which is why passive management is ideal. I'm pretty sure VTSAX can successfully hold a market-cap weighted mix of the 3600 largest US firms pretty much indefinitely. The risk is that the largest US firms stop being generally profitable, like what happened in Japan.
staunch 9y ago
Pensions are a great use-case for smart contracts. I would feel much safer having my retirement assured by a blockchain than a bureaucrat.
- Falell 9y ago
  How would this work? As I understand it pensions are almost never fully funded when they begin because the costs would be prohibitive. Can a smart contract guarantee that funds that are not available now will be made available at a later date?
  - gnaritas 9y ago
    It wouldn't work, almost nothing people want to do with smart contract can actually work because those people tend not to actually understand what a smart contract is or what it can actually do and what it can't do. Virtually every smart contract proposal is DOA due to a misunderstanding of their nature.
    - staunch 9y ago
      What's missing from your claim is any justification for it all. You're just claiming, on zero authority, that it's not possible. So enlighten us. Why do you think it's impossible to encode the mechanics of a pension in a smart contract-based system?
      - gnaritas 9y ago
        I didn't need to, the comment I replied to already addressed a valid why. Smart contracts can't enforce access to funds without locking the funds up from other use, and that's not how things work in the real world. Pensions aren't savings accounts where funds are locked up ready to be used in a black box. They can't interact with the real world without trusted oracles, but we already have that in the real world and they're only real use is when they can do something deterministic on chain. In short, they're largely hype without a real problem to solve... so far.
noobermin 9y ago
Actually, the fact that it hasn't been unrolled completely yet without backlash is a testament to how angry people are when you try to take their protections away.

by laser 9y ago

xienze 9y ago

In the case of BI, I disagree. Politicians will see this for what it really is -- the most direct way to buy votes (by promising increased BI). It would be quite popular with both parties, I'm sure.

bduerst 9y ago
One party's platform is built on the fear of socialism - they will most definitely oppose this and use it to get votes, but by egging it publicly.
- xienze 9y ago
  If we're living in a world where BI is a reality, it will be embraced. Once social programs are implemented, they're nearly impossible to remove -- see ObamaCare. Republicans have given up on going back to the old system and have, well, embraced a tweaked ObamaCare under a new name. They'd do the same with BI. "Democrats promising $30K BI? Well we're gonna do $35K!"
  - bduerst 9y ago
    This is circular logic. In order for BI to become a reality, it first must be embraced. In order for BI to be embraced, it must first be a world where BI is a reality. You keep referencing ACA, but there is currently a new bill to repeal it: https://www.lgraham.senate.gov/public/_cache/files/06822f49-b801-4d9f-95f5-d7b5406e9aa9/lyn17709.pdf https://www.lgraham.senate.gov/public/_cache/files/06822f49-...
    - TCM 9y ago
      The argument from the parent posts rely on ACA being repealed already. If the ACA does get repealed then the above arguments hold but this hasn't happened yet.
      - bduerst 9y ago
        My point is that bringing up the ACA repeal is moot, either way, because it's repeal is still active and not finished.
    - xienze 9y ago
      No, in order for BI to become a reality you just need a Democrat majority to pass the legislation.
  - gehwartzen 9y ago
    The irony of course being that all the existing social programs which are "nearly impossible to remove" will have to be removed to fund the BI.
- pc86 9y ago
  BI is the opposite of socialism when it's coupled with dismantling certain pieces of the social safety net. We don't need WIC or CHIP if we have universal BI, for example.
  - bmelton 9y ago
    That depends on a great deal of factors, I think. Even if we guarantee some sort of income floor, there will still be those who, despite that guarantee, need additional assistance. Whether it's because they have more children than the average, are irresponsible with spending, are victim to a drug habit, unexpectedly lose their jobs, or succumb to medical debt, we have to come to grips with the idea that UBI won't be a cure-all. Even if we acknowledge (and not all will) that most people who are dependent on safety-net assistance are perfectly good and responsible, depending on what the amount is, what their life circumstances are, and a myriad other factors, I don't think we can take it for granted that UBI obviates those specific-purpose programs for the remainder of those who need assistance and for whom UBI is not ideal. Put bluntly, there are people who will take the entirety of their UBI check and spend it on stupid things, and end up without money for food, or for their childrens' health. What are we to do about them?
  - bduerst 9y ago
    Yes, BI involves dismantling certain pieces of the social safety net to replace it with a social safety net. The party that opposes wealth redistribution will oppose BI.
- LyndsySimon 9y ago
  I think you're confusing the GOP's motivations and their rhetoric. See also: their failure to repeal the ACA despite having the presidency and a majority in both houses.
  - philwelch 9y ago
    That's because the GOP isn't a party, it's a coalition of bickering factions that has chosen to prioritize winning over purity. (As opposed to Democrats, who prioritize purity over winning.)
    - s73ver_ 9y ago
      Odd, I would have flipped that statement.
- conanbatt 9y ago
  Tbe republican party like UBI if it comes with a reduction in welfare programs. Its the democrats that have to be convinced.

josefresco 9y ago

Also, similar to the ACA, individual states can attempt to block the roll-out.

mfoy_ 9y ago

That's why I have approximately 0 faith in the pension plan my government(s) have in place. I'll save for my own retirement so I'm not high and dry when they mismanage the funds or change policies or whatever.

zanny 9y ago
While it is less likely, nothing is guaranteed. You assume your investments will be around until you cash them out for retirement, and they are all dependant on something not failing: * Direct stock ownership depends on the company growing, not failing, not being bought out, etc. * Mutual funds depend on the fund manager not going under / properly managing assets. * Bonds depend on state institutions honoring them. * You can't really save for retirement in a bank because their rates of return are below inflation. You lose money in banks. * Hoarding fiat is obviously bad. * Any asset you would try to store long term is subject to market volatility at the least and potential obsolescence at the worst. You simply cannot guess what anything will be worth decades from now. The current US administration knows full well that throwing tens of millions of people off insurance will probably cost them the disenfranchised working class that elected them in the first place and lose them their majorities in congress and the presidency. I fully expect them to stab themselves in the foot with this, since a lot of monied interests benefit from the absurdly inefficient default state of healthcare where many people depend on emergency rooms for all problems, but in the same vein repealing social security would destroy their voting base unless they made it a grandfathered in shutdown where the next Democratic administration could just reinstate it and nobody on benefits would lose benefits.
- ThrustVectoring 9y ago
  >Mutual funds depend on the fund manager not going under / properly managing assets. Err, no. This is not a risk of properly structured mutual funds. The manager does not directly hold assets - they make decisions about what to do with the assets, which the custodian executes. And the fund's management has no recourse to the assets held by the custodian. How the fund goes under is if the assets they hold go to zero value. There's still execution risk, though, which is why passive management is ideal. I'm pretty sure VTSAX can successfully hold a market-cap weighted mix of the 3600 largest US firms pretty much indefinitely. The risk is that the largest US firms stop being generally profitable, like what happened in Japan.

staunch 9y ago

Pensions are a great use-case for smart contracts. I would feel much safer having my retirement assured by a blockchain than a bureaucrat.

Falell 9y ago
How would this work? As I understand it pensions are almost never fully funded when they begin because the costs would be prohibitive. Can a smart contract guarantee that funds that are not available now will be made available at a later date?
- gnaritas 9y ago
  It wouldn't work, almost nothing people want to do with smart contract can actually work because those people tend not to actually understand what a smart contract is or what it can actually do and what it can't do. Virtually every smart contract proposal is DOA due to a misunderstanding of their nature.
  - staunch 9y ago
    What's missing from your claim is any justification for it all. You're just claiming, on zero authority, that it's not possible. So enlighten us. Why do you think it's impossible to encode the mechanics of a pension in a smart contract-based system?
    - gnaritas 9y ago
      I didn't need to, the comment I replied to already addressed a valid why. Smart contracts can't enforce access to funds without locking the funds up from other use, and that's not how things work in the real world. Pensions aren't savings accounts where funds are locked up ready to be used in a black box. They can't interact with the real world without trusted oracles, but we already have that in the real world and they're only real use is when they can do something deterministic on chain. In short, they're largely hype without a real problem to solve... so far.

noobermin 9y ago

Actually, the fact that it hasn't been unrolled completely yet without backlash is a testament to how angry people are when you try to take their protections away.