4 ms·
The problem is that's very light on specifics. It's a bunch of hand wavvy suggestions about how we'll figure it out. The entire article had that kind of fluffin
by aaron-lebo 9y ago
The problem is that's very light on specifics. It's a bunch of hand wavvy suggestions about how we'll figure it out. The entire article had that kind of fluffiness to it, as do most discussions of basic income. These substanceless articles get posted over and over again and heavily upvoted and discussed in various places. I'm honestly hoping for something with more content, which is why I posted that.
I'm guess if I'm making obvious errors in logic, someone will point them out.
- jquery 9y agoYeah, I think there are real discussions to be had about basic income. I'm extremely skeptical of it, I don't see how welfare without any means-testing is politically sustainable long-term. So we'll have welfare on top of it, and the cycle repeats. That said, do you agree the article was written by AI? Try to read it again. It reads like a markov chain of ideas loosely chained together.
- yolio 9y agoMe too, I don't see how something that assumes a lot of good faith is going to work when many countries have trouble with popular support for their current restrictive and measurably effective programs. The only way I see it happening is with some sort of sovereign wealth fund. But that usually requires control of a resource or technology. Which most countries don't have anymore and probably won't have for many decades.