3 ms·

This is a great response, explaining the problem with any UBI in general. I think the only way it could work is when the rich actually CAN gain something for t

by Agebor 9y ago

This is a great response, explaining the problem with any UBI in general. I think the only way it could work is when the rich actually CAN gain something for the goods flow going to the poor - that something can be a sum of "moral satisfaction from charity", "diminishing the chance of the poor majority revolting against the rich" and "statistically helping young poor geniuses (and creative people in general) to join the rich in the future". For each rich person, the ratio of these will be different, but multiplied by a portion of their worth they are willing (or being forced) to give, will in the end define the total amount of UBI available. My theory is that after automation is widespread, it won't really cost much to support the poorer portion of humanity, just as now there is a surplus of basic goods made of plastic (clothes, everyday items). In the future this will extend to food, shelter and connectivity. But at the same time, the rich and poor will be further separated, as there will be no incentive for the rich to interact with the poor.

PeterisP 9y ago
Involving the rich, IMHO, is a 'tragedy of the commons' issue - it's generally not worth for any one of them to get involved, since that doesn't provide a meaningful impact to the practical goals like "prevent the bad effects of inequality around me" or "reduce the risk of pitchfork-driven regime change"; but it could be worth for them to get involved iff there's a certainty that all of them would do so (willingly or not). E.g. it is understandable for certain of the top billionaires to advocate that the top income rate and capital gains tax should be raised (e.g. https://www.cnbc.com/2016/05/02/bill-gates-calls-for-higher-capital-gains-taxes.html https://www.cnbc.com/2016/05/02/bill-gates-calls-for-higher-... or http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/warren-buffett-raise-taxes-wealthy-friends/story?id=14307993 http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/warren-buffett-raise-taxes-we...), and strictly prefer that to simply giving away more of their income - since if you can get all the other rich to chip in, the impact is much larger. It's not feasible to fund UBI by a few ultra-rich people voluntarily chipping in for it, but it is feasible to fund UBI by taxing them.
- jasode 9y ago
  >Involving the rich, IMHO, is a 'tragedy of the commons' issue - it's generally not worth for any one of them to get involved, since that doesn't provide a meaningful return It's unfortunate your analysis of Circles cryptocurrency not solving for _value_creation_ is not near the top for further discussion by more than one person. A very similar currency proposal (Group cryptocurrency) also didn't account for sustainable _value_creation_ that I discussed with its creator on HN before: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9501355 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9501355 Both the UBI cryptocurrency proposals are flawed because they get the wealth-to-money cause & effect backwards. It's the wealth creation (the value of labor / food / calculating the stars to predict floods / singing poetry / catching fish / etc) that causes money to be worth something. The Circles whitepaper using concepts like "validators" and "transitive exchange" doesn't solve the value creation.

by Agebor 9y ago

PeterisP 9y ago

Involving the rich, IMHO, is a 'tragedy of the commons' issue - it's generally not worth for any one of them to get involved, since that doesn't provide a meaningful impact to the practical goals like "prevent the bad effects of inequality around me" or "reduce the risk of pitchfork-driven regime change"; but it could be worth for them to get involved iff there's a certainty that all of them would do so (willingly or not). E.g. it is understandable for certain of the top billionaires to advocate that the top income rate and capital gains tax should be raised (e.g. https://www.cnbc.com/2016/05/02/bill-gates-calls-for-higher-capital-gains-taxes.html https://www.cnbc.com/2016/05/02/bill-gates-calls-for-higher-... or http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/warren-buffett-raise-taxes-wealthy-friends/story?id=14307993 http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/warren-buffett-raise-taxes-we...), and strictly prefer that to simply giving away more of their income - since if you can get all the other rich to chip in, the impact is much larger. It's not feasible to fund UBI by a few ultra-rich people voluntarily chipping in for it, but it is feasible to fund UBI by taxing them.

jasode 9y ago
>Involving the rich, IMHO, is a 'tragedy of the commons' issue - it's generally not worth for any one of them to get involved, since that doesn't provide a meaningful return It's unfortunate your analysis of Circles cryptocurrency not solving for _value_creation_ is not near the top for further discussion by more than one person. A very similar currency proposal (Group cryptocurrency) also didn't account for sustainable _value_creation_ that I discussed with its creator on HN before: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9501355 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9501355 Both the UBI cryptocurrency proposals are flawed because they get the wealth-to-money cause & effect backwards. It's the wealth creation (the value of labor / food / calculating the stars to predict floods / singing poetry / catching fish / etc) that causes money to be worth something. The Circles whitepaper using concepts like "validators" and "transitive exchange" doesn't solve the value creation.