3 ms·

I guess I'm not seeing the difference between "the social safety net" and "money in people's hands." Technocratic means-tested programs are no substitute for gi

by uoaei 6y ago

I guess I'm not seeing the difference between "the social safety net" and "money in people's hands." Technocratic means-tested programs are no substitute for giving people money and letting them spend it organically. Isn't that the point of a "free market" anyway? To let the market decide what is valuable? It's hard to accept any claim that constructing barriers makes social safety nets more effective. Giving people money and raising minimum wages is indistinguishable to me. The only way they can be different is if you think economic output would be significantly different if people weren't "forced" to work by making wages the only avenue of income. That is the Randian perspective I am referring to.

nobody9999 6y ago
>The only way they can be different is if you think economic output would be significantly different if people weren't "forced" to work by making wages the only avenue of income. I do think economic output would be significantly different, regardless of how you "spread it around." A broader base of consumers will consume more. A broader base of entrepreneurs will expand economic development. Spreading the money around will increase consumption and incentivize increased economic output. I'm not sure what you mean by a "Randian" perspective, based on what I wrote. My post advocated for an enhanced safety net. I did not put any conditions (like "means tested") on such enhancements. My post advocated for, in simple terms, "spreading the money around widely", in order to increase economic stability, reduced poverty and economic inequality. I also implied that doing so would, over the long term, create an economy with less inequality by increasing the share of a (growing) pie by those with the least. And that's somehow "Randian?" I guess one (or both) of us need to go back and re-read Atlas Shrugged and The Fountainhead, because IIRC the changes I suggest are completely antithetical to those expressed in Rand's writings. Edit: Added clarity WRT to the impact of increased wages/enhanced safety net vs. UBI.
- uoaei 6y ago
  ... I referenced very specifically which part to me is Randian. The sentiment that if we give people free money they will be lazy and sink into a life of dependence.
  - nobody9999 6y ago
    >... I referenced very specifically which part to me is Randian. The sentiment that if we give people free money they will be lazy and sink into a life of dependence. I'm not GGP who argued against UBI. Nor did I make any argument for or against UBI. And I didn't make any argument even approaching "if we give people free money they will be lazy and sink into a life of dependence." In fact, my argument was that if we make the safety net robust, we will allow people to be more productive and entrepreneurial. I'm not sure who you're arguing with, but it's not me. Are you sure you replied to the right comment?
    - uoaei 6y ago
      Well that wasn't made clear. I was reacting to: > We'd just see people with no incentives continue down the road of poverty. Why would you reply to my comment defending your stance as if I had challenged it? Why are you injecting yourself into that conversation if you're not supporting the claim that I explicitly referenced, and making it look like you're replying to the things I'm saying by quoting me directly?
      - nobody9999 6y ago
        I guess one (or both) of us need to go back and re-read Atlas Shrugged and The Fountainhead, because IIRC the changes I suggest are completely antithetical to those expressed in Rand's writings.
  - nobody9999 6y ago
    >Well that wasn't made clear. >I was reacting to: >> We'd just see people with no incentives continue down the road of poverty. >Why would you reply to my comment defending your stance as if I had challenged it? I can't reply to comment that contains the above, so I'll do so here. Where did I say anything even remotely approaching "We'd just see people with no incentives continue down the road of poverty."? I wasn't "defending" anyone or anything. I am not the user who posted the comment[0] you replied to. And it seems strange that you found my comment adversarial, as it was at worst orthogonal to yours. Upon reading the your reply to djsumdog's comment, I thought I'd add my own (related, and I thought, relevant) thoughts to the discussion. Is that not kind of the whole point of this site? [0] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25446323 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25446323

by uoaei 6y ago

nobody9999 6y ago

>The only way they can be different is if you think economic output would be significantly different if people weren't "forced" to work by making wages the only avenue of income. I do think economic output would be significantly different, regardless of how you "spread it around." A broader base of consumers will consume more. A broader base of entrepreneurs will expand economic development. Spreading the money around will increase consumption and incentivize increased economic output. I'm not sure what you mean by a "Randian" perspective, based on what I wrote. My post advocated for an enhanced safety net. I did not put any conditions (like "means tested") on such enhancements. My post advocated for, in simple terms, "spreading the money around widely", in order to increase economic stability, reduced poverty and economic inequality. I also implied that doing so would, over the long term, create an economy with less inequality by increasing the share of a (growing) pie by those with the least. And that's somehow "Randian?" I guess one (or both) of us need to go back and re-read Atlas Shrugged and The Fountainhead, because IIRC the changes I suggest are completely antithetical to those expressed in Rand's writings. Edit: Added clarity WRT to the impact of increased wages/enhanced safety net vs. UBI.

uoaei 6y ago
... I referenced very specifically which part to me is Randian. The sentiment that if we give people free money they will be lazy and sink into a life of dependence.
- nobody9999 6y ago
  >... I referenced very specifically which part to me is Randian. The sentiment that if we give people free money they will be lazy and sink into a life of dependence. I'm not GGP who argued against UBI. Nor did I make any argument for or against UBI. And I didn't make any argument even approaching "if we give people free money they will be lazy and sink into a life of dependence." In fact, my argument was that if we make the safety net robust, we will allow people to be more productive and entrepreneurial. I'm not sure who you're arguing with, but it's not me. Are you sure you replied to the right comment?
  - uoaei 6y ago
    Well that wasn't made clear. I was reacting to: > We'd just see people with no incentives continue down the road of poverty. Why would you reply to my comment defending your stance as if I had challenged it? Why are you injecting yourself into that conversation if you're not supporting the claim that I explicitly referenced, and making it look like you're replying to the things I'm saying by quoting me directly?
    - nobody9999 6y ago
      I guess one (or both) of us need to go back and re-read Atlas Shrugged and The Fountainhead, because IIRC the changes I suggest are completely antithetical to those expressed in Rand's writings.
- nobody9999 6y ago
  >Well that wasn't made clear. >I was reacting to: >> We'd just see people with no incentives continue down the road of poverty. >Why would you reply to my comment defending your stance as if I had challenged it? I can't reply to comment that contains the above, so I'll do so here. Where did I say anything even remotely approaching "We'd just see people with no incentives continue down the road of poverty."? I wasn't "defending" anyone or anything. I am not the user who posted the comment[0] you replied to. And it seems strange that you found my comment adversarial, as it was at worst orthogonal to yours. Upon reading the your reply to djsumdog's comment, I thought I'd add my own (related, and I thought, relevant) thoughts to the discussion. Is that not kind of the whole point of this site? [0] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25446323 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25446323