4 ms·

> in usa most people live paycheck to paycheck give them more money, and they will still live p2p. > spending $10k to "help" someone in a country where people

> in usa most people live paycheck to paycheck give them more money, and they will still live p2p. > spending $10k to "help" someone in a country where people... Never mentioned that. Did mention that many people in the developed world already have enough assets to retire comfortably in a developing country. From there, they would have the time and the money to "do things that are creative and for the greater good," yet very few people avail themselves of this opportunity. > Family (ultra socialism), Tribe, (extreme socialism), Village (mix of socialism), between outsiders (capitalism) Socialism/Capitalism are industrial age concepts. Industrial society as a precondition of proper socialism was a major sticking-point in early soviet Russia, being that they wanted socialism, yet had little industry. Family/tribe/village is blood. > I don't know what's the answer, but first step must be to recognize it. I know that UBI isn't it. Whether it's socialism or capitalism, competition remains. Socialists jockey for power and position just like the capitalists. In a competition, if you give everyone the same "Universal Basic" leg-up, it stops being a leg-up. It's point-inflation! Since we are speaking of governments & financial systems rather than games, that leg-up is pernicious. The poor will remain poor, the rich will remain rich, yet it will reduce many people in the middle into dependency -- without the subsidy (& corresponding price inflation), they could cover their necessities without assistance, but with the subsidy, and with the inflation, the transfer payment goes from "nice to have" to necessity. It turns democratic process on its head -- another "third rail" for politicians, corporations, non-profits, NGOs to scare/blackmail voters with. > we have all yearned at some point to be sitting around large campfire and... I respect your Uncle Ted vision. Maybe you should read what old Ted wrote about leftists in general?

lifeplusplus 6y ago
I agree with points, but wanted to add that it's acceptable to think that some people in natural economic system will become poor due to being sick, mental problems, addictions and so on. But it's dangerous to claim that all poor and even any significant percentage of poor people are poor due to their traits. It's not that having certain traits could bring them out of poverty but rather for the large majority the only difference between people who are rich and poor is luck, cards they were dealt. If we assume people spend first on necessities and then on luxury, which is pretty reasonable assumption, then UBI would increase consumption of necessities far more. Which would cause inflation in prices of those things, but over long run the supply chain would adjust bringing the prices back to equilibrium. Are there people who have no idea how to spend money, yes! Often this is just not poors but can be children of ultra rich, who never saw money as limited resource and by the third generation have squandered all of inherited wealth. It's valid concern that inflation would destroy the middle class. But assuming inflation is end result isn't the full picture. More money => higher demand => higher prices => more profit => increase in supply => more supply => lower prices. So over time prices come back down, perhaps not where they were before money supply increased but definitely not at peak. With that said UBI for bottom 50% is going to become more and more required as digitization, automation, and AI makes it that few people can own entire industries. There was a point where advances in tech would just mean new types of jobs but always more jobs... lost typewritters but gained more computer clerks. But now tech is at point where advances reduces total amount of jobs. Soon cab drivers, cashiers, pilots, teachers and much more is going to be replaced with technological solutions that scale without humans. The trend would eventually lead to 60%+ being unemployable and you only need so many people to write code. So yes i think post industrial society is flawed. UBI would alleviate some pain and symptoms, even if there are bad actors.
- chaganated 6y ago
  > rich ... poor ... luck, cards they were dealt For Bill Gates wealth, maybe. For the average case, I would say, no. Our choices are like compound interest. Consistently making 1% better choices than average, over time, leads to extraordinary results. 1% worse choices over time, turn on Maury Povich, or Judge Judy, or go to walmart and look around! > over long run the supply chain would adjust bringing the prices back to equilibrium Not everything is a widget. Competence is still in short supply. The machine is nowhere near replacing electricians, mechanics, doctors, salesmen, engineers, teachers, etc. Brain power (esp healthcare & tech) already extracts the largest number of dollars from the average joe. The tribute that it demands will most certainly rise along with the cash in circulation. > It's valid concern that inflation would destroy the middle class. Never said it would destroy anyone. I wrote that it would make the people who are currently borderline self-sufficient fall into dependence upon the new government subsidy, and that dependence becomes yet another system of control. Do your own taxes. Look at how much social engineering is already in play. > With that said UBI for bottom 50% is going to become more and more required as digitization, automation, and AI makes it that few people can own entire industries. This is silicon valley sales/PR BS, and for several reasons: 1) Moravec's paradox. The hard things are easy, and the easy things are hard. Many jobs that our coastal elite are gunning for are going to be much harder to AI-away than they think -- victims of their own caste bias. Given current ML techniques, and a hundred-mill, I'm sure we could beat the pants off of most radiologists, but if you look at all of the weird houses and buildings out there, AI won't be replacing plumbers and electricians for generations. They've been saying that the self-driving car is right around the corner for 10 years now, but they're still mowing down pedestrians. 2) Moore's law. It's mostly dead. We can get speedups here and there with architectural tweaks and additions, but that's not the same as a doubling every 18 months for almost 40 years. It is unlikely that we'll see the same kind of progress in the next 10 years as we saw in the previous 10. 3) Service economy. Plenty of space outside the bleak world of maximum stuff for minimum dollars. Local bands, yoga instructors, lawn guys, personal trainers, camwhores, writers, hairdressers, etc, etc. The move to the service economy has been under way since at least the 90s. Much of what we can automate has been automated for some time now. So, long story short, it's an elite fiction. A psyop to turn a chunk of the able-bodied working-age population into scared old ladies worried about what's going to happen to their social security.

lifeplusplus 6y ago

I agree with points, but wanted to add that it's acceptable to think that some people in natural economic system will become poor due to being sick, mental problems, addictions and so on. But it's dangerous to claim that all poor and even any significant percentage of poor people are poor due to their traits. It's not that having certain traits could bring them out of poverty but rather for the large majority the only difference between people who are rich and poor is luck, cards they were dealt. If we assume people spend first on necessities and then on luxury, which is pretty reasonable assumption, then UBI would increase consumption of necessities far more. Which would cause inflation in prices of those things, but over long run the supply chain would adjust bringing the prices back to equilibrium. Are there people who have no idea how to spend money, yes! Often this is just not poors but can be children of ultra rich, who never saw money as limited resource and by the third generation have squandered all of inherited wealth. It's valid concern that inflation would destroy the middle class. But assuming inflation is end result isn't the full picture. More money => higher demand => higher prices => more profit => increase in supply => more supply => lower prices. So over time prices come back down, perhaps not where they were before money supply increased but definitely not at peak. With that said UBI for bottom 50% is going to become more and more required as digitization, automation, and AI makes it that few people can own entire industries. There was a point where advances in tech would just mean new types of jobs but always more jobs... lost typewritters but gained more computer clerks. But now tech is at point where advances reduces total amount of jobs. Soon cab drivers, cashiers, pilots, teachers and much more is going to be replaced with technological solutions that scale without humans. The trend would eventually lead to 60%+ being unemployable and you only need so many people to write code. So yes i think post industrial society is flawed. UBI would alleviate some pain and symptoms, even if there are bad actors.

chaganated 6y ago
> rich ... poor ... luck, cards they were dealt For Bill Gates wealth, maybe. For the average case, I would say, no. Our choices are like compound interest. Consistently making 1% better choices than average, over time, leads to extraordinary results. 1% worse choices over time, turn on Maury Povich, or Judge Judy, or go to walmart and look around! > over long run the supply chain would adjust bringing the prices back to equilibrium Not everything is a widget. Competence is still in short supply. The machine is nowhere near replacing electricians, mechanics, doctors, salesmen, engineers, teachers, etc. Brain power (esp healthcare & tech) already extracts the largest number of dollars from the average joe. The tribute that it demands will most certainly rise along with the cash in circulation. > It's valid concern that inflation would destroy the middle class. Never said it would destroy anyone. I wrote that it would make the people who are currently borderline self-sufficient fall into dependence upon the new government subsidy, and that dependence becomes yet another system of control. Do your own taxes. Look at how much social engineering is already in play. > With that said UBI for bottom 50% is going to become more and more required as digitization, automation, and AI makes it that few people can own entire industries. This is silicon valley sales/PR BS, and for several reasons: 1) Moravec's paradox. The hard things are easy, and the easy things are hard. Many jobs that our coastal elite are gunning for are going to be much harder to AI-away than they think -- victims of their own caste bias. Given current ML techniques, and a hundred-mill, I'm sure we could beat the pants off of most radiologists, but if you look at all of the weird houses and buildings out there, AI won't be replacing plumbers and electricians for generations. They've been saying that the self-driving car is right around the corner for 10 years now, but they're still mowing down pedestrians. 2) Moore's law. It's mostly dead. We can get speedups here and there with architectural tweaks and additions, but that's not the same as a doubling every 18 months for almost 40 years. It is unlikely that we'll see the same kind of progress in the next 10 years as we saw in the previous 10. 3) Service economy. Plenty of space outside the bleak world of maximum stuff for minimum dollars. Local bands, yoga instructors, lawn guys, personal trainers, camwhores, writers, hairdressers, etc, etc. The move to the service economy has been under way since at least the 90s. Much of what we can automate has been automated for some time now. So, long story short, it's an elite fiction. A psyop to turn a chunk of the able-bodied working-age population into scared old ladies worried about what's going to happen to their social security.