3 ms·

Let me make it more clear for you. The feed back loop of getting paid, is that you are being productive in the market place for producing goods or services that

by um_ya 8y ago

Let me make it more clear for you. The feed back loop of getting paid, is that you are being productive in the market place for producing goods or services that are in demand in the market place. Handing somebody "free" money takes from the productive sources that earned the money and distributes it to people randomly. What did the person receiving the money provide to the market place, rather than simply existing? Truly, if UBI was high enough, there would be no incentive to work at all, and you might be able to live quite comfortably with not working if you pair it with food stamps and all the other "free" things the government provides. What's preventing unambitious people from not working, having children and perpetuating the cycle? Over time, this would drain further and further on the system because you've created a false dynamic in the market place that rewards those that do nothing. This is the same reasoning behind wanting to get rid of non essential foods (like hot Cheetos, ect.) from EBT cards. You should not be happy receiving welfare benefits or UBI, you should be uncomfortable enough to be ambitious to find a real job in the market place to better your living condition.

jMyles 8y ago
I see. Yeah, I didn't understand your position from your previous comment. I still don't think I quite understand the racial angle you're playing here, because I don't think you can demonstrably separate the systemic racism (eg, drug prohibition) from the economic impact of welfare. But I think it's reasonable to point out that this is fuzzing the price signals of the market. Generally, I don't care for government meddling in the economy for this reason - I gather that you share this view. In order to be satisfied that the impact will be negative, though, I find myself needing to understand whether the current price signals are optimized for the most important values. Currently, in the crony capitalist system, the scenario you describe is rampant: "Handing somebody 'free' money takes from the productive sources that earned the money and distributes it to people...". I mean, isn't this basically all defense contracting and prisons? And most finance, insurance, and real-estate? Meanwhile, things that are unquestionable worthwhile, like art and philosophy, aren't particularly economically viable. So how do you line up price signals with genuine value? It's a hard question. Like what I gather is your position, I am far, far more inclined to trust a free market than government. But if I'm reading your comment correctly, you seem to have a bit of a fetish for "jobs" and capitalist ambition. I don't care whatsoever is somebody has a job. I don't think most people want jobs, and I don't think most jobs need people. The vast majority of the population can find something better to do than a menial job, and I don't think it's reasonable to suggest that they need to be "uncomfortable enough to be ambitious" as a result. If we are able to automate many (even most) jobs out of existence, don't we want people to thrive while doing something better with their time than pumping your gas or checking you out at the store?

by um_ya 8y ago

jMyles 8y ago

I see. Yeah, I didn't understand your position from your previous comment. I still don't think I quite understand the racial angle you're playing here, because I don't think you can demonstrably separate the systemic racism (eg, drug prohibition) from the economic impact of welfare. But I think it's reasonable to point out that this is fuzzing the price signals of the market. Generally, I don't care for government meddling in the economy for this reason - I gather that you share this view. In order to be satisfied that the impact will be negative, though, I find myself needing to understand whether the current price signals are optimized for the most important values. Currently, in the crony capitalist system, the scenario you describe is rampant: "Handing somebody 'free' money takes from the productive sources that earned the money and distributes it to people...". I mean, isn't this basically all defense contracting and prisons? And most finance, insurance, and real-estate? Meanwhile, things that are unquestionable worthwhile, like art and philosophy, aren't particularly economically viable. So how do you line up price signals with genuine value? It's a hard question. Like what I gather is your position, I am far, far more inclined to trust a free market than government. But if I'm reading your comment correctly, you seem to have a bit of a fetish for "jobs" and capitalist ambition. I don't care whatsoever is somebody has a job. I don't think most people want jobs, and I don't think most jobs need people. The vast majority of the population can find something better to do than a menial job, and I don't think it's reasonable to suggest that they need to be "uncomfortable enough to be ambitious" as a result. If we are able to automate many (even most) jobs out of existence, don't we want people to thrive while doing something better with their time than pumping your gas or checking you out at the store?