6 ms·

UBI is a death sentence within direct democracies short of robot/AI provided abundance. Introduction beforehand sows the seed for a direct transfer of wealth fr

UBI is a death sentence within direct democracies short of robot/AI provided abundance. Introduction beforehand sows the seed for a direct transfer of wealth from the 49% haves to the 51% have-nots.

SubiculumCode 6y ago
You state this as fact when it is clearly an opinion about what would happen with a UBI. Moreover, if UBI was implemented as a tax refund, then there is plenty of precedent for not being alarmed.
gumby 6y ago
> Introduction beforehand sows the seed for a direct transfer of wealth from the 49% haves to the 51% have-nots. And why is that inherently bad? It may be bad (I happen not to think so) but would like more than a bare assertion that that is the case. For example, in favor: from an economics PoV, increased liquidity and discretionary income on the part of the poorer population should increase economic activity (e.g. velocity of money) which is good for business.
- offby37years 6y ago
  It simultaneously incentivises skilled emigration and unskilled immigration. It would drive an exodus of any entrepreneurial talent.
  - gumby 6y ago
    > It would drive an exodus of any entrepreneurial talent. Why?
    - therealdrag0 6y ago
      Depends how much the transfer is. It sound like the implication is a lot. In which case entrepreneurs will move to where their potential returns aren’t dampened. Same reason people have moved TO silicone valley, ambitions of outsized rewards..
  - reilly3000 6y ago
    Or help fund early stage companies, and otherwise make it feasible to take small risks which improve capital fluidity and transaction/innovation velocity. Not every entrepreneur is a petulant nomad.
  - imbnwa 6y ago
    Skilled emmigration to where? Europe, Britain, and Canada have as much if not more hindrances, no?
seangrogg 6y ago
While I imagine it could easily be nitpicked in some fashion, it could be the case that automation values/milestones/something were used to determine the total amount to be distributed evenly among citizens (rather than an arbitrary number).
dragonwriter 6y ago
> UBI is a death sentence within direct democracies Direct democracies are virtually nonexistent at the national level; Switzerland, which is still a mostly-representative democracy, is probably the closest thing there is. > Introduction beforehand sows the seed for a direct transfer of wealth from the 49% haves to the 51% have-nots. Means-tested welfare plus taxation, which most countries have, does that, too; I don't see how UBI is any more dangerous in that regard, nor do I see the runaway spiral of voting unsustainable benefits anywhere, despite the popular meme that this is the natural consequence of democratic control of the public purse. So, before I take this particular slippery slope argument seriously, I'm going to need to see some convincing argument of how UBI is different in some relevant way.
- offby37years 6y ago
  The dose makes the poison. The universal nature drastically increases the proportion, from a single-digit minority to a majority approaching 99%, who stand to benefit from increased redistribution. From there it's a spiral to complete redistribution.
  - dragonwriter 6y ago
    But if the threat is people voting to expand it, they can just as easily vote to expand means tested welfare, and just as many people “stand to benefit”. There doesn't seem to be any basis at all to the speculation that UBI crosses some divide where this effect—which has long been used as an argument against democracy itself though it has never been demonstrated—will suddenly become real.
    - offby37years 6y ago
      You're describing an artificial minority maintained through means-testing. That's not UBI.
      - dragonwriter 6y ago
        Yes, means-tested welfare is different than UBI. But it's not different in a way that I see any coherent argument makes UBI more prone to being turned into a transfer from the wealthier bare-minority to the poorer bare-minority through democratic process. (Classically, that threat is an argument against democracy generally, recently it's been retooled as an argument against UBI; in both forms its a narrative appealing to the assumed ignorance and venality of the masses that doesn't seem to have much support in actual behavior of real democratic systems.)

UBI is a death sentence within direct democracies short of robot/AI provided abundance. Introduction beforehand sows the seed for a direct transfer of wealth from the 49% haves to the 51% have-nots.

SubiculumCode 6y ago

You state this as fact when it is clearly an opinion about what would happen with a UBI. Moreover, if UBI was implemented as a tax refund, then there is plenty of precedent for not being alarmed.

gumby 6y ago

> Introduction beforehand sows the seed for a direct transfer of wealth from the 49% haves to the 51% have-nots. And why is that inherently bad? It may be bad (I happen not to think so) but would like more than a bare assertion that that is the case. For example, in favor: from an economics PoV, increased liquidity and discretionary income on the part of the poorer population should increase economic activity (e.g. velocity of money) which is good for business.

offby37years 6y ago
It simultaneously incentivises skilled emigration and unskilled immigration. It would drive an exodus of any entrepreneurial talent.
- gumby 6y ago
  > It would drive an exodus of any entrepreneurial talent. Why?
  - therealdrag0 6y ago
    Depends how much the transfer is. It sound like the implication is a lot. In which case entrepreneurs will move to where their potential returns aren’t dampened. Same reason people have moved TO silicone valley, ambitions of outsized rewards..
- reilly3000 6y ago
  Or help fund early stage companies, and otherwise make it feasible to take small risks which improve capital fluidity and transaction/innovation velocity. Not every entrepreneur is a petulant nomad.
- imbnwa 6y ago
  Skilled emmigration to where? Europe, Britain, and Canada have as much if not more hindrances, no?

seangrogg 6y ago

While I imagine it could easily be nitpicked in some fashion, it could be the case that automation values/milestones/something were used to determine the total amount to be distributed evenly among citizens (rather than an arbitrary number).

dragonwriter 6y ago

> UBI is a death sentence within direct democracies Direct democracies are virtually nonexistent at the national level; Switzerland, which is still a mostly-representative democracy, is probably the closest thing there is. > Introduction beforehand sows the seed for a direct transfer of wealth from the 49% haves to the 51% have-nots. Means-tested welfare plus taxation, which most countries have, does that, too; I don't see how UBI is any more dangerous in that regard, nor do I see the runaway spiral of voting unsustainable benefits anywhere, despite the popular meme that this is the natural consequence of democratic control of the public purse. So, before I take this particular slippery slope argument seriously, I'm going to need to see some convincing argument of how UBI is different in some relevant way.

offby37years 6y ago
The dose makes the poison. The universal nature drastically increases the proportion, from a single-digit minority to a majority approaching 99%, who stand to benefit from increased redistribution. From there it's a spiral to complete redistribution.
- dragonwriter 6y ago
  But if the threat is people voting to expand it, they can just as easily vote to expand means tested welfare, and just as many people “stand to benefit”. There doesn't seem to be any basis at all to the speculation that UBI crosses some divide where this effect—which has long been used as an argument against democracy itself though it has never been demonstrated—will suddenly become real.
  - offby37years 6y ago
    You're describing an artificial minority maintained through means-testing. That's not UBI.
    - dragonwriter 6y ago
      Yes, means-tested welfare is different than UBI. But it's not different in a way that I see any coherent argument makes UBI more prone to being turned into a transfer from the wealthier bare-minority to the poorer bare-minority through democratic process. (Classically, that threat is an argument against democracy generally, recently it's been retooled as an argument against UBI; in both forms its a narrative appealing to the assumed ignorance and venality of the masses that doesn't seem to have much support in actual behavior of real democratic systems.)