4 ms·

I don't believe you understand what he's saying. His point, as I understand it, is if you participate economically in a social structure, your vote represents

I don't believe you understand what he's saying. His point, as I understand it, is if you participate economically in a social structure, your vote represents economic activity in that structure. So if the nation was full of fast-food workers, the democratic structure that would come out of it would be something that favored fast-food workers and took their economic needs into account. In your example of retired people, a world full of retired people would create a governmental structure that understood and favored the economic activity of retired folks, which is basic consumption. In a world where most people simply consume, such as those retired people, either you wouldn't get participation at all or you'd get participation that was structured economically around what retired folks do. In either case, it's a tyrannical and dysfunctional government. The only way to "fix" it is to have a de facto oligarchy where a small number of rich people control everything and deliver it to the masses. And that's as bad or worse than the other scenarios.

jjawssd 9y ago
Is it possible that the USA already has a de facto oligarchy where a small number of rich people control everything and deliver it to the masses?
- DanielBMarkham 9y ago
  I was more interested in understanding what the author was saying than debating it, but yes, it's quite possible. I'm a firm believer that the jury is still out on UBI, but if you ask me, this is the best cautionary argument I've read so far. It's a simple mental experiment: if 90% of the people receive money and 10% make it, what forms of stable government could you have? There's only two. The first is where the government looks after consumption at the expense of production -- with runaway debt and a debt default spiral. The other is an oligarchy where people are "tended to" I believe the UBI folks are all in the second camp, whether they realize it or not. There are real structural issues at play here, and modernization should produce much more leisure time than it has. Kudos to folks trying to experiment to make a difference. Doing nothing is not very enlightening. But what this author seems to be getting at is something like this: our individual struggles inside the economic system we've created to provide value to others makes us better participants in a representative republic. These experiences are based on real-world conditions and billions of little experiments we all perform daily. Basing our voting decisions on all of this anecdotal and irrational data sucks, but it sucks much less than simply picking whatever meme turns us on the most at the moment all around the theme of more consumption. It sucks, but it's a workable system. The other way, not so much. Never thought of it like that. Iteresting.
  - jjawssd 9y ago
    "Modernization should produce much more leisure time than it has" I fully disagree. Modernization changes the problems we face but we use the solutions as leverage to overcome our next challenges, whether real or imagined.
mikeash 9y ago
You're right, I don't understand it. Why does a government structured around the economic activity of its voters suddenly become tyrannical and dysfunctional when when most of them are no longer productive?
- DanielBMarkham 9y ago
  Because the interests of the majority in consuming does not align with the interests of the minority in producing. In a widely-diverse economy, it's impossible to have huge voting blocks like that. There's just too many vastly different economic models represented. But if you start heading down the road of UBI, you're basically splitting the population into two groups. Something's gotta give somewhere. You either get debt default or oligarchy. It currently works in the U.S. -- assuming you believe the U.S. is not dysfunctional -- because while we have retired folks, they're just a small part of a vastly more diverse electorate. And even then, you'd imagine they would bring some of their experience in the economy to bear on their current decisions. A nation full of people who have never economically participated would have no data to decide or discuss which voting decisions to make. It'd all just be about more consumption. In fact, assuming you could make it work, it would end up with folks voting in short-term bumps in UBI increases at the expense of long-term budgets, for much the same reasons as corporate boards vote in CEOs who can increase the share price short-term at the expense of long-term strategy. Only way out of that is tyranny/oligarchy. Note that I'm not saying it won't work. I want to see more experiments and real data instead of all of this arguing about how many angels can dance on the head of a pin. Real data beats this kinda stuff hands-down. I'm simply saying it's an interesting argument that deserves some attention -- especially when looking at the results of the experiments when they roll in. The last thing I would want to see is something like YC doing an experiment where the only people looking at results were folks who were already true believers. That's total crap. You want results you can throw rocks at.
  - mikeash 9y ago
    Why don't employed people act like a big block too? Is this an Anna Karenina sort of thing, where unemployed people are all alike, but every employed person is employed in his own way?

jjawssd 9y ago

Is it possible that the USA already has a de facto oligarchy where a small number of rich people control everything and deliver it to the masses?

DanielBMarkham 9y ago
I was more interested in understanding what the author was saying than debating it, but yes, it's quite possible. I'm a firm believer that the jury is still out on UBI, but if you ask me, this is the best cautionary argument I've read so far. It's a simple mental experiment: if 90% of the people receive money and 10% make it, what forms of stable government could you have? There's only two. The first is where the government looks after consumption at the expense of production -- with runaway debt and a debt default spiral. The other is an oligarchy where people are "tended to" I believe the UBI folks are all in the second camp, whether they realize it or not. There are real structural issues at play here, and modernization should produce much more leisure time than it has. Kudos to folks trying to experiment to make a difference. Doing nothing is not very enlightening. But what this author seems to be getting at is something like this: our individual struggles inside the economic system we've created to provide value to others makes us better participants in a representative republic. These experiences are based on real-world conditions and billions of little experiments we all perform daily. Basing our voting decisions on all of this anecdotal and irrational data sucks, but it sucks much less than simply picking whatever meme turns us on the most at the moment all around the theme of more consumption. It sucks, but it's a workable system. The other way, not so much. Never thought of it like that. Iteresting.
- jjawssd 9y ago
  "Modernization should produce much more leisure time than it has" I fully disagree. Modernization changes the problems we face but we use the solutions as leverage to overcome our next challenges, whether real or imagined.

mikeash 9y ago

You're right, I don't understand it. Why does a government structured around the economic activity of its voters suddenly become tyrannical and dysfunctional when when most of them are no longer productive?

DanielBMarkham 9y ago
Because the interests of the majority in consuming does not align with the interests of the minority in producing. In a widely-diverse economy, it's impossible to have huge voting blocks like that. There's just too many vastly different economic models represented. But if you start heading down the road of UBI, you're basically splitting the population into two groups. Something's gotta give somewhere. You either get debt default or oligarchy. It currently works in the U.S. -- assuming you believe the U.S. is not dysfunctional -- because while we have retired folks, they're just a small part of a vastly more diverse electorate. And even then, you'd imagine they would bring some of their experience in the economy to bear on their current decisions. A nation full of people who have never economically participated would have no data to decide or discuss which voting decisions to make. It'd all just be about more consumption. In fact, assuming you could make it work, it would end up with folks voting in short-term bumps in UBI increases at the expense of long-term budgets, for much the same reasons as corporate boards vote in CEOs who can increase the share price short-term at the expense of long-term strategy. Only way out of that is tyranny/oligarchy. Note that I'm not saying it won't work. I want to see more experiments and real data instead of all of this arguing about how many angels can dance on the head of a pin. Real data beats this kinda stuff hands-down. I'm simply saying it's an interesting argument that deserves some attention -- especially when looking at the results of the experiments when they roll in. The last thing I would want to see is something like YC doing an experiment where the only people looking at results were folks who were already true believers. That's total crap. You want results you can throw rocks at.
- mikeash 9y ago
  Why don't employed people act like a big block too? Is this an Anna Karenina sort of thing, where unemployed people are all alike, but every employed person is employed in his own way?