3 ms·

> where does that money come from? The people hoarding it.

by Scapeghost 6y ago

lolsal 6y ago
Didn't they earn it? Didn't they trade for it?
- Scapeghost 6y ago
  > Didn't they earn it? Can anyone prove it? Do they need it? Is a CEO with multiple mansions and private jets and billions in the bank more worthy of life than the guy working in the mines processing the raw materials of modern civilization but living from paycheck to paycheck and barely able to support a family? What about the mogul who raises essentials prices during a crisis? Or the traffickers running prostitution rings? There are many ways to make money without "earning" it. Can you make sure that only the people who earned their money can have it? The point of UBI is to not have to ask or try to answer these sorts of questions.
  - nybble41 6y ago
    > Can anyone prove it? The burden of proof is on you to show that they did not earn it. > Do they need it? Irrelevant. It's theirs whether they need it or not. And whether they need it is not for you to decide. > Is a CEO with … billions in the bank more worthy of life than the guy working in the mines…? No, they are equally worthy of life. Which has nothing at all to do with how much wealth each of them has earned. In any case these CEOs are rare outliers; as rich as they are, if you took all their assets combined and diluted them evenly among the rest of the population nothing would materially change, at least in the short term. In the long term, since you'd no longer have competent individuals administering things, the economy would implode and everyone would be far worse off. What, you thought corporate shareholders hired CEOs and offered them huge salaries for administering their companies at a loss? The difference they make in the company's bottom line far exceeds their pay. Moreover, if you actually liquidated those billions of dollars worth of shares in order to fund consumption then the companies and the productive capital they represent would rapidly cease to exist. Those few of us who survive can look forward to a bare subsistence standard of living in exchange for long, hard days of manual labor in the fields. But at least we'd all be equally poor, right? > What about the mogul who raises essentials prices during a crisis? Raising prices on scarce goods during a crisis is economically and socially productive. It ensures that these essentials will be saved for the situations where they are actually needed most and incentivizes the production of more essentials. If you hold prices low and pretend that it's just business-as-usual then you're going to end up with shortages. > Or the traffickers running prostitution rings? That's what the courts are for. But you'll have to prove it, not just throw around vague accusations. > Can you make sure that only the people who earned their money can have it? Guilty until proven innocent? That's not how this works. > The point of UBI is to not have to ask or try to answer these sorts of questions. That isn't really the point of UBI, and even if it were it wouldn't be a laudable goal. Solving the perceived problem of unequal outcomes at the expense of justice is not a trade worth even a moment's consideration—even if UBI actually had a chance of accomplishing that, which it doesn't.
    - Scapeghost 6y ago
      Why are you against the idea of people being able to live without having to constantly struggle for basic needs and comforts? Do you want the "bottom rung" to just die off during every crunch and crisis like this?
      - nybble41 6y ago
        > Why are you against the idea of people being able to live without having to constantly struggle for basic needs and comforts? I'm not against that; the universe is. What I am opposed to is the idea that it's acceptable for some people to take what they want from other people in order to avoid "having to constantly struggle for basic needs and comforts". Find a way to avoid the struggle without taking anything away from others and I'll be 100% on board.
      - lolsal 6y ago
        > Why are you against the idea of people being able to live without having to constantly struggle for basic needs and comforts? I love the idea! You are welcome to support them with whatever means you have available. I won't, though. > Do you want the "bottom rung" to just die off during every crunch and crisis like this? No.
    - Scapeghost 6y ago
      > Can anyone prove it? > The burden of proof is on you to show that they did not earn it. It was a response to "Didn't they earn it?" so the burden of proof is on them. > Do they need it? > Irrelevant. It's theirs whether they need it or not. So why can't it be given to anybody else whether they need it or not?
      - nybble41 6y ago
        > It was a response to "Didn't they earn it?" so the burden of proof is on them. You want to take what they have away from them, so the burden of proof is on you to justify that. No one is obligated to justify keeping what they already have. > So why can't it be given to anybody else whether they need it or not? The owner can give it to anybody else whether they need it or not. You are not the owner.
  - lolsal 6y ago
    > Can anyone prove it? Sure, just follow their bank statements and other financial ledgers. > Do they need it? I dunno, 'need' is tricky to define. Could you list all of the needs that you think you have? Why do you think you are entitled to those needs? > Is a CEO with multiple mansions and private jets and billions in the bank more worthy of life than the guy working in the mines processing the raw materials of modern civilization but living from paycheck to paycheck and barely able to support a family? Certainly not. Are we talking about life or money? > What about the mogul who raises essentials prices during a crisis? Or the traffickers running prostitution rings? There are many ways to make money without "earning" it. Can you make sure that only the people who earned their money can have it? You make a fair point, there are many ways to collect money with questionably ethical methods. Does that matter? What about rich technology workers? Folks that own businesses that aren't spectacular, like car insurance companies, speed boat manufacturers, construction companies, etc?

> where does that money come from? The people hoarding it.

lolsal 6y ago

Didn't they earn it? Didn't they trade for it?

Scapeghost 6y ago
> Didn't they earn it? Can anyone prove it? Do they need it? Is a CEO with multiple mansions and private jets and billions in the bank more worthy of life than the guy working in the mines processing the raw materials of modern civilization but living from paycheck to paycheck and barely able to support a family? What about the mogul who raises essentials prices during a crisis? Or the traffickers running prostitution rings? There are many ways to make money without "earning" it. Can you make sure that only the people who earned their money can have it? The point of UBI is to not have to ask or try to answer these sorts of questions.
- nybble41 6y ago
  > Can anyone prove it? The burden of proof is on you to show that they did not earn it. > Do they need it? Irrelevant. It's theirs whether they need it or not. And whether they need it is not for you to decide. > Is a CEO with … billions in the bank more worthy of life than the guy working in the mines…? No, they are equally worthy of life. Which has nothing at all to do with how much wealth each of them has earned. In any case these CEOs are rare outliers; as rich as they are, if you took all their assets combined and diluted them evenly among the rest of the population nothing would materially change, at least in the short term. In the long term, since you'd no longer have competent individuals administering things, the economy would implode and everyone would be far worse off. What, you thought corporate shareholders hired CEOs and offered them huge salaries for administering their companies at a loss? The difference they make in the company's bottom line far exceeds their pay. Moreover, if you actually liquidated those billions of dollars worth of shares in order to fund consumption then the companies and the productive capital they represent would rapidly cease to exist. Those few of us who survive can look forward to a bare subsistence standard of living in exchange for long, hard days of manual labor in the fields. But at least we'd all be equally poor, right? > What about the mogul who raises essentials prices during a crisis? Raising prices on scarce goods during a crisis is economically and socially productive. It ensures that these essentials will be saved for the situations where they are actually needed most and incentivizes the production of more essentials. If you hold prices low and pretend that it's just business-as-usual then you're going to end up with shortages. > Or the traffickers running prostitution rings? That's what the courts are for. But you'll have to prove it, not just throw around vague accusations. > Can you make sure that only the people who earned their money can have it? Guilty until proven innocent? That's not how this works. > The point of UBI is to not have to ask or try to answer these sorts of questions. That isn't really the point of UBI, and even if it were it wouldn't be a laudable goal. Solving the perceived problem of unequal outcomes at the expense of justice is not a trade worth even a moment's consideration—even if UBI actually had a chance of accomplishing that, which it doesn't.
  - Scapeghost 6y ago
    Why are you against the idea of people being able to live without having to constantly struggle for basic needs and comforts? Do you want the "bottom rung" to just die off during every crunch and crisis like this?
    - nybble41 6y ago
      > Why are you against the idea of people being able to live without having to constantly struggle for basic needs and comforts? I'm not against that; the universe is. What I am opposed to is the idea that it's acceptable for some people to take what they want from other people in order to avoid "having to constantly struggle for basic needs and comforts". Find a way to avoid the struggle without taking anything away from others and I'll be 100% on board.
    - lolsal 6y ago
      > Why are you against the idea of people being able to live without having to constantly struggle for basic needs and comforts? I love the idea! You are welcome to support them with whatever means you have available. I won't, though. > Do you want the "bottom rung" to just die off during every crunch and crisis like this? No.
  - Scapeghost 6y ago
    > Can anyone prove it? > The burden of proof is on you to show that they did not earn it. It was a response to "Didn't they earn it?" so the burden of proof is on them. > Do they need it? > Irrelevant. It's theirs whether they need it or not. So why can't it be given to anybody else whether they need it or not?
    - nybble41 6y ago
      > It was a response to "Didn't they earn it?" so the burden of proof is on them. You want to take what they have away from them, so the burden of proof is on you to justify that. No one is obligated to justify keeping what they already have. > So why can't it be given to anybody else whether they need it or not? The owner can give it to anybody else whether they need it or not. You are not the owner.
- lolsal 6y ago
  > Can anyone prove it? Sure, just follow their bank statements and other financial ledgers. > Do they need it? I dunno, 'need' is tricky to define. Could you list all of the needs that you think you have? Why do you think you are entitled to those needs? > Is a CEO with multiple mansions and private jets and billions in the bank more worthy of life than the guy working in the mines processing the raw materials of modern civilization but living from paycheck to paycheck and barely able to support a family? Certainly not. Are we talking about life or money? > What about the mogul who raises essentials prices during a crisis? Or the traffickers running prostitution rings? There are many ways to make money without "earning" it. Can you make sure that only the people who earned their money can have it? You make a fair point, there are many ways to collect money with questionably ethical methods. Does that matter? What about rich technology workers? Folks that own businesses that aren't spectacular, like car insurance companies, speed boat manufacturers, construction companies, etc?