3 ms·

> Are you really suggesting one man created it? No of course not. The company he built from the ground up did. Those workers are paid as per their employment

> Are you really suggesting one man created it? No of course not. The company he built from the ground up did. Those workers are paid as per their employment contract. That's it. That doesn't give them rights to take pieces of ownership in that company.

mathgladiator 7y ago
The way we value ownership may be something to think about. I'm very capitalistic, but I'm not happy. I'm reading "tribe: homecomings and belonging" (subtitle paraphrased due to poor memory). I am a millionaire and I am thinking about how to use it to build a community, and while I dont think we should use force to take wealth, I did believe we need a new leadership class to inspire and influence how ownership is shared.
- tomschlick 7y ago
  I believe that in the context of small communities, programs for the less fortunate can work very well. Mostly because the resources are attached to something/someone they know and they would feel to social pressure not to abuse those resources. For instance, I'm not a religious person but that's one of the true virtues of a religious community. Giving to the less fortunate but you feel the pressure to do good with it, and you're expected to give back when you have the means to. If you abused that generosity, it would become apparent fast and your community would cut you off. When you do this at a national level though, the tragedy of the commons come into play and no one cares who the money is coming from so long as they get it. There is very little social pressure not to game the system at that point. I don't pretend to have a complete solution for all of these problems, I just think giving everyone a blank check each month is just adding more fuel to the fire.
  - NeedMoreTea 7y ago
    Which is surely an argument in favour of UBI? No tragedy of the commons, or scope to "abuse" it - you exist, you get the UBI. Should work at any scale, no? No need to claim insurance or welfare if shit happens - that safety net stays. A baseline below which it's not possible to sink. Which was the original intent behind welfare etc. The possibility of having small communities joining in once again, in addition would be great. That would require unwinding much of the neoliberal Thatcher/Reagan view of things though. Community or collective bad, "there's no such thing as society" as a matter of dogma. We've all been made economic individuals, everything should be paid for individually, community and cooperation is old tech to be eliminated. No wonder there's a crisis of loneliness.
    - tomschlick 7y ago
      > No need to claim insurance or welfare if shit happens - that safety net stays. In most UBI proposals (such as A. Yang's) those programs would mostly go away. > Which is surely an argument in favour of UBI? In a vacuum sure. But UBI will inevitably lead to inflation of things like food, cars, rent etc. Especially so in the poorer communities that already are heavily subsidized (which would go away under UBI in favor of a single payment). If your landlord knew that everyone all of a sudden had an extra $1000/mo of disposable income they wouldn't be worried to raise the rent because they know you have it. We will then be in the same position with the option to either raise it to $2k/mo or re-introduce programs like SNAP/WIC/etc to earmark money for food/rent so people don't just go broke paying rent.
magnamerc 7y ago
At what point do people take ownership? What if governments as we know them today are replaced by trillion dollar AI/robotics corporations that litteraly own the means of production? We'll all get very cheap goods and services, but at what cost? You're now beholden to a megacorp that provides food, housing, entertainment, transportation, and employment. Sounds pretty dystopian to me.
- slowmovintarget 7y ago
  Meaning is more important than means. Government by megacorp does sound horrific. Production by megacorp less so.
xcklo 7y ago
Incorporation is granted by the state. While it wouldn't be popular the government could very likely give people the right to take ownership in a corporation without too much technical problems. It is a matter of how you want to structure employment. There is nothing really saying that salary has to be the only required compensation.

mathgladiator 7y ago

The way we value ownership may be something to think about. I'm very capitalistic, but I'm not happy. I'm reading "tribe: homecomings and belonging" (subtitle paraphrased due to poor memory). I am a millionaire and I am thinking about how to use it to build a community, and while I dont think we should use force to take wealth, I did believe we need a new leadership class to inspire and influence how ownership is shared.

tomschlick 7y ago
I believe that in the context of small communities, programs for the less fortunate can work very well. Mostly because the resources are attached to something/someone they know and they would feel to social pressure not to abuse those resources. For instance, I'm not a religious person but that's one of the true virtues of a religious community. Giving to the less fortunate but you feel the pressure to do good with it, and you're expected to give back when you have the means to. If you abused that generosity, it would become apparent fast and your community would cut you off. When you do this at a national level though, the tragedy of the commons come into play and no one cares who the money is coming from so long as they get it. There is very little social pressure not to game the system at that point. I don't pretend to have a complete solution for all of these problems, I just think giving everyone a blank check each month is just adding more fuel to the fire.
- NeedMoreTea 7y ago
  Which is surely an argument in favour of UBI? No tragedy of the commons, or scope to "abuse" it - you exist, you get the UBI. Should work at any scale, no? No need to claim insurance or welfare if shit happens - that safety net stays. A baseline below which it's not possible to sink. Which was the original intent behind welfare etc. The possibility of having small communities joining in once again, in addition would be great. That would require unwinding much of the neoliberal Thatcher/Reagan view of things though. Community or collective bad, "there's no such thing as society" as a matter of dogma. We've all been made economic individuals, everything should be paid for individually, community and cooperation is old tech to be eliminated. No wonder there's a crisis of loneliness.
  - tomschlick 7y ago
    > No need to claim insurance or welfare if shit happens - that safety net stays. In most UBI proposals (such as A. Yang's) those programs would mostly go away. > Which is surely an argument in favour of UBI? In a vacuum sure. But UBI will inevitably lead to inflation of things like food, cars, rent etc. Especially so in the poorer communities that already are heavily subsidized (which would go away under UBI in favor of a single payment). If your landlord knew that everyone all of a sudden had an extra $1000/mo of disposable income they wouldn't be worried to raise the rent because they know you have it. We will then be in the same position with the option to either raise it to $2k/mo or re-introduce programs like SNAP/WIC/etc to earmark money for food/rent so people don't just go broke paying rent.

magnamerc 7y ago

At what point do people take ownership? What if governments as we know them today are replaced by trillion dollar AI/robotics corporations that litteraly own the means of production? We'll all get very cheap goods and services, but at what cost? You're now beholden to a megacorp that provides food, housing, entertainment, transportation, and employment. Sounds pretty dystopian to me.

slowmovintarget 7y ago
Meaning is more important than means. Government by megacorp does sound horrific. Production by megacorp less so.

xcklo 7y ago

Incorporation is granted by the state. While it wouldn't be popular the government could very likely give people the right to take ownership in a corporation without too much technical problems. It is a matter of how you want to structure employment. There is nothing really saying that salary has to be the only required compensation.