5 ms·

>I have a positive, but finite, amount that I care about people in poverty. It appears too low to effectively help them except in the case that the same effort

>I have a positive, but finite, amount that I care about people in poverty. It appears too low to effectively help them except in the case that the same effort might also help yourself. This is not caring. >Giving people in poverty a sustenance level of amount money per month seems it prioritizes neighbors in poverty more than today The contradictions and other problems really are too long to list here but it shouldn’t be necessary. For someone so concerned with wasting money, advocating UBI over direct commodity distribution is about as hypocritical as it gets. The only difference is an additional and purely self-serving dependency on market values, which are drastically unstable across time, geography and, social structures. So, while your claim is of course untested, your proposal only further establishes that once it is instatiated, the results will be ever-changing and your claim therefor unknowable. You might do best to just state why* you would prefer UBI over direct commodity distribution.

sokoloff 8y ago
> It appears too low to effectively help them except in the case that the same effort might also help yourself. UBI would absolutely not help me or my family in aggregate. We would be net donors to that program, likely by a factor of more than 20. I support it not because it's good for me, but because it seems the best way to ensure a minimalist safety net for all members of the society. > This is not caring. I understand your opinion. > You might do best to just state why you would prefer UBI over direct commodity distribution. I believe that individuals know better how to and will do a better job in allocating cash than any other agent, governmental or not, would know how to allocate commodities to them. I like this cheese, or that bread. I don’t like crunchy peanut butter. I’d rather live on the East side of the city. I’d rather live with roommates and have more free cash; someone else might want to spend more to live alone. Lots of choices to be made to optimize for limited resources. I don't want a new governmental agency (likely with the usability of the DMV) deciding where poor people live, what they are given to eat, and what clothes they are given to wear. Money is trivially easy to distribute without creating any parallel logistics operations to buy, store, inventory, move, and distribute physical goods. We already have market-based distribution mechanisms for all of those things. Give them cash and let them use their agency to decide how to spend it. They'll do a much better job of it than we would on their behalf.
- extralego 8y ago
  The purpose for social programs is not to provide freedom, but to provide security against loss of health, life and a bare minimum of dignity, the latter of which is even maintained on death row... let us remember poor people die every day without a last meal. I hope I don’t sound disrespectful, but your ongoing insistance that governments in the abstract are inherently dysfunctional seems to underwrite most of your last comment and this is just such an ignorant roadblock. It’s not a matter of opinion. I take immense issue with many businesses, and most American business traditions, but I would never be so ignorant as to refuse acknowledgement of what they do well or to misrepresent their role in all civilized societies. Why insist such a limitation on your own understanding? Governments are essentially for the people. They serve to facilitate a common civility. Feudalism was born of the necessity to protect the farmers and their crops with a military. It’s legacy was diminished by a long period of failing to prioritize the people. Democracy + capitalism is not a perfect match; but some of Europe has had the courage to face it’s failures and inches closer to actualizing governments which are for the people. When you criticize America’s government, you’ll want to be careful. “Business” is probably a more accurate descriptor of what you’re actually criticizing. It’s no secret, either. So when you insist on discounting the configuration of a particular “government”, you’re devolving what could otherwise be a productive conversation. Therefore, I’m going to ignore most of these assaults on proven successes and the potential for future innovation. Without criticality, we an go ahead and just agree we are fucked. This is not meant as a straw man but it deserves a word or two: When it comes to who should speak for the needs of poor people, how do you reason that you are qualified? Of course, poor people are not always* their best spokes people, but they do have a type first-hand experience unlike any other. I’ve been economically lucky compared with many people I know but there were periods in my childhood when my family would benefit and a significant one as an adult. It’s hard to imagine our different experiences are not causal to my position, but the nature of that relationship is far from obvious. For you, capitalism has consistently meant freedom. For me, it has meant moments of awe for the wonders of capitalism soon to be fraught with sudden peril and lasting threat. I don’t think guilt on either end is necessarily useful, but the dreadfulness of the poverty experience in America is reason alone that it’s not easily shared. Some films have tried, like Kelly Reichardt’s Wendy and Lucy. The lack of natural story arc is a problem, but the real dealbreaker is invoking what it is to be robbed of one’s dignity. Dignity is complex, but the day-to-day of poverty in America leaves no doubt of it’s fragility. The dizzying network effect of ever-more-tangling dependencies intercut with penny counting, truth-stretching, psychological escape, false hope, begging, crime, self-doubt, and the many flavors of shame have a way of defining it’s importance. This can’t be said enough: The purpose for social programs is not to provide freedom, but to provide security against loss of health, life and dignity. Freedom is fallacious. The limits to one’s freedom are defined by their relative power over others. It’s risky and has many exterior dependencies. It’s unnecessary but nice to have. Security and dignity are far more meager and far more important. Loss of these defined by one’s means for survival and health. Loss of security and dignity has tremendous direct physical and mental health consequences, and is the most common gateway to violence, crime, and suicide. Poor people know not to fuck with the latter. Poor people have cutting experience with the countless ways that money’s value is dependent on those who have more of it. >I don’t want a new government agency deciding where poor people live, what they are given to eat, and what clothes they are given to wear. In a life of poverty, the difference between a government deciding and nobody deciding incredibly often the difference between sickness and health, hunger and nourishment, or life and death. Direct commodity distribution done well (by an educated, compassionate, and civically engaged population) is drastically more efficient, drastically more effective, and drastically more humane. Of course, it might require a little innovation. Hopefully you don’t hate innovation.

sokoloff 8y ago

> It appears too low to effectively help them except in the case that the same effort might also help yourself. UBI would absolutely not help me or my family in aggregate. We would be net donors to that program, likely by a factor of more than 20. I support it not because it's good for me, but because it seems the best way to ensure a minimalist safety net for all members of the society. > This is not caring. I understand your opinion. > You might do best to just state why you would prefer UBI over direct commodity distribution. I believe that individuals know better how to and will do a better job in allocating cash than any other agent, governmental or not, would know how to allocate commodities to them. I like this cheese, or that bread. I don’t like crunchy peanut butter. I’d rather live on the East side of the city. I’d rather live with roommates and have more free cash; someone else might want to spend more to live alone. Lots of choices to be made to optimize for limited resources. I don't want a new governmental agency (likely with the usability of the DMV) deciding where poor people live, what they are given to eat, and what clothes they are given to wear. Money is trivially easy to distribute without creating any parallel logistics operations to buy, store, inventory, move, and distribute physical goods. We already have market-based distribution mechanisms for all of those things. Give them cash and let them use their agency to decide how to spend it. They'll do a much better job of it than we would on their behalf.

extralego 8y ago
The purpose for social programs is not to provide freedom, but to provide security against loss of health, life and a bare minimum of dignity, the latter of which is even maintained on death row... let us remember poor people die every day without a last meal. I hope I don’t sound disrespectful, but your ongoing insistance that governments in the abstract are inherently dysfunctional seems to underwrite most of your last comment and this is just such an ignorant roadblock. It’s not a matter of opinion. I take immense issue with many businesses, and most American business traditions, but I would never be so ignorant as to refuse acknowledgement of what they do well or to misrepresent their role in all civilized societies. Why insist such a limitation on your own understanding? Governments are essentially for the people. They serve to facilitate a common civility. Feudalism was born of the necessity to protect the farmers and their crops with a military. It’s legacy was diminished by a long period of failing to prioritize the people. Democracy + capitalism is not a perfect match; but some of Europe has had the courage to face it’s failures and inches closer to actualizing governments which are for the people. When you criticize America’s government, you’ll want to be careful. “Business” is probably a more accurate descriptor of what you’re actually criticizing. It’s no secret, either. So when you insist on discounting the configuration of a particular “government”, you’re devolving what could otherwise be a productive conversation. Therefore, I’m going to ignore most of these assaults on proven successes and the potential for future innovation. Without criticality, we an go ahead and just agree we are fucked. This is not meant as a straw man but it deserves a word or two: When it comes to who should speak for the needs of poor people, how do you reason that you are qualified? Of course, poor people are not always* their best spokes people, but they do have a type first-hand experience unlike any other. I’ve been economically lucky compared with many people I know but there were periods in my childhood when my family would benefit and a significant one as an adult. It’s hard to imagine our different experiences are not causal to my position, but the nature of that relationship is far from obvious. For you, capitalism has consistently meant freedom. For me, it has meant moments of awe for the wonders of capitalism soon to be fraught with sudden peril and lasting threat. I don’t think guilt on either end is necessarily useful, but the dreadfulness of the poverty experience in America is reason alone that it’s not easily shared. Some films have tried, like Kelly Reichardt’s Wendy and Lucy. The lack of natural story arc is a problem, but the real dealbreaker is invoking what it is to be robbed of one’s dignity. Dignity is complex, but the day-to-day of poverty in America leaves no doubt of it’s fragility. The dizzying network effect of ever-more-tangling dependencies intercut with penny counting, truth-stretching, psychological escape, false hope, begging, crime, self-doubt, and the many flavors of shame have a way of defining it’s importance. This can’t be said enough: The purpose for social programs is not to provide freedom, but to provide security against loss of health, life and dignity. Freedom is fallacious. The limits to one’s freedom are defined by their relative power over others. It’s risky and has many exterior dependencies. It’s unnecessary but nice to have. Security and dignity are far more meager and far more important. Loss of these defined by one’s means for survival and health. Loss of security and dignity has tremendous direct physical and mental health consequences, and is the most common gateway to violence, crime, and suicide. Poor people know not to fuck with the latter. Poor people have cutting experience with the countless ways that money’s value is dependent on those who have more of it. >I don’t want a new government agency deciding where poor people live, what they are given to eat, and what clothes they are given to wear. In a life of poverty, the difference between a government deciding and nobody deciding incredibly often the difference between sickness and health, hunger and nourishment, or life and death. Direct commodity distribution done well (by an educated, compassionate, and civically engaged population) is drastically more efficient, drastically more effective, and drastically more humane. Of course, it might require a little innovation. Hopefully you don’t hate innovation.