4 ms·

My frustration with Basic Income is that it’s a legislative solution to a productivity problem. Instead of redistributing wealth, a practice that can be overtur

My frustration with Basic Income is that it’s a legislative solution to a productivity problem. Instead of redistributing wealth, a practice that can be overturned any time, I advocate for the intentional construction of productive machinery owned by the people. If all people owned shares in machines that produced the goods we need for survival, we could receive the benefit of that productivity directly. With a UBI, the idea is to continue letting a small group of people control all the wealth, and then ask them to give us some. It’s laughable to me that people believe you can let one group have all the power and then force them to give some of that power to everyone else. Why would they do that? The solution in my mind is to arrange things so that everyone has a share of the wealth in the first place. I write a bit about that here: http://tlalexander.com/machine/ http://tlalexander.com/machine/

lord_ring_111 8y ago
Yes. Espectually given advances in automation this looks like the most reasonable path. This solves both the UBI as well as also stops the accumulation of power in hands of few due to efficiencies and scaling factors.
ttonkytonk 8y ago
As someone who is currently sleeping under a bridge most nights, I would be happy to tolerate that frustration until a more equitable system can be implemented.
- DoreenMichele 8y ago
  https://sandiegohomelesssurvivalguide.blogspot.com/ https://sandiegohomelesssurvivalguide.blogspot.com/
- TaylorAlexander 8y ago
  Surely, a UBI would help you immediately. But I don’t think we’ll see one any time soon. Meanwhile I’m trying to develop a more equitable system. I hope it works. It’s clearly unfair to me that I get to sleep in an apartment and some people can’t. My hope is that by owning the means of production and sharing the output, we can build a more equitable system. Incidentally I talk about how someone can come in with nothing and end up with part ownership in The Machine in its follow on essay, The Corporation. http://tlalexander.com/corporation/ http://tlalexander.com/corporation/
krapp 8y ago
How is that not also redistributing wealth?
- rohit2412 8y ago
  Maybe it is better to call it redistribution income vs redistrubuting wealth
daveFNbuck 8y ago
Your link doesn't address full collective ownership, you just talk about the group of people that band together to buy a machine. In a country where we're unwilling to invest in basic maintenance of our critical infrastructure, how would you keep the machines from falling apart? What happens to the ownership of local machines when someone moves? How do you ensure that a broken machine doesn't impoverish a community? More importantly, how does your solution of inventing a new machine to solve poverty help anyone in the decades before we're able to build it? What's the backup plan if you're wrong about the feasibility of this machine? You seem to be trying to get rid of economics by solving scarcity rather than come up with solutions to economic problems.
- TaylorAlexander 8y ago
  A few things: The follow on essay to The Machine is The Corporation, which talks a little about the logistics of such a thing. http://tlalexander.com/corporation/ http://tlalexander.com/corporation/ Certainly, I’d like to write a book on these ideas, and I have a lot more to flesh out. But that doesn’t mean it’s not worth pursuing! Much of what I want to accomplish is not to get rid of economics, but make it work for regular people. I think that can be done by making sure the people own the means of production and making sure that no one is unfairly exploited for their labor. That is not in my mind getting rid of economics. And surely, I believe we can realize the benefits of these ideas almost immediately, and I advocate for doing that on my website, http://Reboot.love http://Reboot.love. Specifically, I think that we can encourage robotics engineers to develop open source solutions, and we can encourage investors and policy makers to fund training so more people can understand how to benefit from these open source designs. I foresee real economic benefits to these ideas helping people within ten years. I believe the reach of these ideas can be broader and more immediate than a UBI. Even if a UBI were implemented in, say, France or Canada, billions would still be without it. But if we design open source productive machinery that can be made in a small shop, everyone from Kenya to Bangladesh to Detroit and Watsonville can benefit. That’s what I’m working towards.
dragonwriter 8y ago
> Instead of redistributing wealth, a practice that can be overturned any time, I advocate for the intentional construction of productive machinery owned by the people. Public ownership of means of production is as easily overturned (doing so is called “privatization”) as wealth redistribution; in fact, it's been done many times in places that had established public ownership of some or all of the means of production. So, your objection to redistribution seems to apply at least as strongly to your alternative.
- TaylorAlexander 8y ago
  Hello there! To be clear, I’m not talking about state ownership of the means of production, I’m talking about direct ownership through democratically controlled private corporations. http://tlalexander.com/corporation/ http://tlalexander.com/corporation/
  - dragonwriter 8y ago
    Any ownership structure can be changed arbitrarily; destroying non-state community ownership of land in favor of privatized, marketable ownership was a key capitalist land “reform” in many places (Mexico for instance). Abrogating any democratic worker-ownership system is no less possible than discontinuing a spending program, and to the extent it's difficult it is because of popularity and the same political factors that constrain ending a spending program. Property rights, no less than taxing and spending, is a feature of law subject to the whims of the State.
    - TaylorAlexander 8y ago
      These are all fair points. Part of what drives my thinking is the assumption that the moneyed capitalists will fight to defend individual property rights, and that we can build a socialist system inside of the capitalist system. But as you say, the laws can always change to screw regular people. I’ll have to look in to the reform you speak of in Mexico. Do you have any more details to guide my search on that? Thanks!
tomtimtall 8y ago
So you want to do the redistribution in shares issued in ownership the state will sieze from every single company rather than just doing the redistribution in cash. Seems like a really destructive way to achieve the same goal with no added benefit.u Also it’s kind of comical to insinuate that such shares issued by a government that just appropriated a huge chunk of private corporations would somehow be more secure than cash issued periodically because they are harder to take away, I mean they would litterally signify that this government will take whatever they wish without recourse.

lord_ring_111 8y ago

Yes. Espectually given advances in automation this looks like the most reasonable path. This solves both the UBI as well as also stops the accumulation of power in hands of few due to efficiencies and scaling factors.

ttonkytonk 8y ago

As someone who is currently sleeping under a bridge most nights, I would be happy to tolerate that frustration until a more equitable system can be implemented.

DoreenMichele 8y ago
https://sandiegohomelesssurvivalguide.blogspot.com/ https://sandiegohomelesssurvivalguide.blogspot.com/
TaylorAlexander 8y ago
Surely, a UBI would help you immediately. But I don’t think we’ll see one any time soon. Meanwhile I’m trying to develop a more equitable system. I hope it works. It’s clearly unfair to me that I get to sleep in an apartment and some people can’t. My hope is that by owning the means of production and sharing the output, we can build a more equitable system. Incidentally I talk about how someone can come in with nothing and end up with part ownership in The Machine in its follow on essay, The Corporation. http://tlalexander.com/corporation/ http://tlalexander.com/corporation/

krapp 8y ago

How is that not also redistributing wealth?

rohit2412 8y ago
Maybe it is better to call it redistribution income vs redistrubuting wealth

daveFNbuck 8y ago

Your link doesn't address full collective ownership, you just talk about the group of people that band together to buy a machine. In a country where we're unwilling to invest in basic maintenance of our critical infrastructure, how would you keep the machines from falling apart? What happens to the ownership of local machines when someone moves? How do you ensure that a broken machine doesn't impoverish a community? More importantly, how does your solution of inventing a new machine to solve poverty help anyone in the decades before we're able to build it? What's the backup plan if you're wrong about the feasibility of this machine? You seem to be trying to get rid of economics by solving scarcity rather than come up with solutions to economic problems.

TaylorAlexander 8y ago
A few things: The follow on essay to The Machine is The Corporation, which talks a little about the logistics of such a thing. http://tlalexander.com/corporation/ http://tlalexander.com/corporation/ Certainly, I’d like to write a book on these ideas, and I have a lot more to flesh out. But that doesn’t mean it’s not worth pursuing! Much of what I want to accomplish is not to get rid of economics, but make it work for regular people. I think that can be done by making sure the people own the means of production and making sure that no one is unfairly exploited for their labor. That is not in my mind getting rid of economics. And surely, I believe we can realize the benefits of these ideas almost immediately, and I advocate for doing that on my website, http://Reboot.love http://Reboot.love. Specifically, I think that we can encourage robotics engineers to develop open source solutions, and we can encourage investors and policy makers to fund training so more people can understand how to benefit from these open source designs. I foresee real economic benefits to these ideas helping people within ten years. I believe the reach of these ideas can be broader and more immediate than a UBI. Even if a UBI were implemented in, say, France or Canada, billions would still be without it. But if we design open source productive machinery that can be made in a small shop, everyone from Kenya to Bangladesh to Detroit and Watsonville can benefit. That’s what I’m working towards.

dragonwriter 8y ago

> Instead of redistributing wealth, a practice that can be overturned any time, I advocate for the intentional construction of productive machinery owned by the people. Public ownership of means of production is as easily overturned (doing so is called “privatization”) as wealth redistribution; in fact, it's been done many times in places that had established public ownership of some or all of the means of production. So, your objection to redistribution seems to apply at least as strongly to your alternative.

TaylorAlexander 8y ago
Hello there! To be clear, I’m not talking about state ownership of the means of production, I’m talking about direct ownership through democratically controlled private corporations. http://tlalexander.com/corporation/ http://tlalexander.com/corporation/
- dragonwriter 8y ago
  Any ownership structure can be changed arbitrarily; destroying non-state community ownership of land in favor of privatized, marketable ownership was a key capitalist land “reform” in many places (Mexico for instance). Abrogating any democratic worker-ownership system is no less possible than discontinuing a spending program, and to the extent it's difficult it is because of popularity and the same political factors that constrain ending a spending program. Property rights, no less than taxing and spending, is a feature of law subject to the whims of the State.
  - TaylorAlexander 8y ago
    These are all fair points. Part of what drives my thinking is the assumption that the moneyed capitalists will fight to defend individual property rights, and that we can build a socialist system inside of the capitalist system. But as you say, the laws can always change to screw regular people. I’ll have to look in to the reform you speak of in Mexico. Do you have any more details to guide my search on that? Thanks!

tomtimtall 8y ago

So you want to do the redistribution in shares issued in ownership the state will sieze from every single company rather than just doing the redistribution in cash. Seems like a really destructive way to achieve the same goal with no added benefit.u Also it’s kind of comical to insinuate that such shares issued by a government that just appropriated a huge chunk of private corporations would somehow be more secure than cash issued periodically because they are harder to take away, I mean they would litterally signify that this government will take whatever they wish without recourse.