7 ms·

I conceptualize a UBI as a dividend, where every citizen has exactly one nontransferable ownership share of the nation state and has the right to share in it's

I conceptualize a UBI as a dividend, where every citizen has exactly one nontransferable ownership share of the nation state and has the right to share in it's profit.

nickpp 5y ago
You can get that today by simply buying into one of the many low cost ETFs available following the S&P500 index. No need to wait for the State to do it for you.
- dragonwriter 5y ago
  > You can get that today by simply buying into one of the many low cost ETFs available following the S&P500 index No, you can't get an equal share with every other citizen that way, especially if you are a lower-class worker without substantial surplus income.
  - nickpp 5y ago
    Yes, it’s not equal and not free either. But we have it working today.
    - dragonwriter 5y ago
      > Yes, it’s not equal and not free either. But we have it working today. I mean, it's literally not working, even a little bit, for the vast majority of the people who would be net beneficiaries under a UBI. This is “let them eat cake” levels of out-of-touch.
      - nickpp 5y ago
        The greatest mass-pulling out of poverty I personally witnessed in my lifetime was when the communist states of Eastern Europe moved to capitalism. More of that, please.
        yazaddaruvala 5y ago
        Capitalism is very good at allocating capital and as a result innovating to increase the "ceiling" of the human experience. Capitalism is very bad at increasing the "floor" of the human experience. Almost by definition, there is some threshold, X% of the population, where the marginal reward is no longer worth the effort (in lay terms - its not "worth it" to R&D and innovate to build amazing and cheap products for poor people). Trickle down economics typically doesn't happen[0]. This band typically is the target and victim of rent seeking - i.e. stagnation with a higher long-term price than innovation. Historically, Capitalism has always just exploited the floor through rent seeking until that "floor" dies a few decades later, then continues to exploit the new "floor". UBI is a focus on improving that "floor" of the human experience (different than other government programs by reducing stigma and increasing guarantees). If you can think of it, I would love to hear about a way to incentivize Capitalism to increase the "floor" of the human experience. If you want more capitalism, we need to figure out how do we incentivize more "Altruistic Capitalism" (maybe a different name?). There are some companies kinda starting to do this, I've heard them called "For Purpose Capitalism"/"For Purpose Companies" e.g. Tom's shoes, etc. [0] https://usafacts.org/articles/internet-access-students-at-home/#:~:text=However%2C%2034%25%20reported%20not%20having,not%20available%20in%20their%20area https://usafacts.org/articles/internet-access-students-at-ho.... and this is in the USA in-spite of charity, government subsidies and regulations for getting more access to the internet.
        e4e78a06 5y ago
        The floor of the human experience is not what got us to the moon and invented the transistor. > Trickle down economics typically doesn't happen Is that why basically everyone in America has some sort of always-connected smartphone with more computing power than a laptop from 2008 did? Citing telecom infrastructure as your example is just arguing in poor faith as it's well known American telecom infra is an oligopoly/monopoly. Just because there are some market failures doesn't mean we should throw the entire market out the window by implementing UBI.
        yazaddaruvala 5y ago
- anonporridge 5y ago
  Assuming you're not living as a poverty level wage slave and regularly have to choose between buying food and medicine, then sure.
  - nickpp 5y ago
    Indeed, getting people out of poverty is a different issue, an issue no redistribution system has solved yet.
    - beaconstudios 5y ago
      That's just objectively not true - welfare systems stop people from becoming homeless or starving in the street all the time. Libertarianism/neoliberalism is the ideological model that doesn't care about the poor - social democracy isn't perfect but it is an improvement over just letting people die.
      - nickpp 5y ago
        It’s not about caring, it’s about results. Capitalism is the only system that pulled both countries and people out of poverty, because it’s the best system at motivating people to create value. Redistributing systems are naturally demotivating. The balance is being tried indeed but it’s a slippery slope in a democracy where people just learn that they can vote more money in their pockets.
        beaconstudios 5y ago
        Social democracy is still capitalism, it just redirects some taxes into a welfare program. If eliminating poverty is the end goal then we need a safety net for those who fail.
        dragonwriter 5y ago
        > Social democracy is still capitalism It's still capitalism in much the same way that capitalism is still feudalism.
- sharkjacobs 5y ago
  > every citizen has exactly one nontransferable ownership share of the nation state > buying into one of the many low cost ETFs available following the S&P500 index There are some pretty big differences between these
  - nickpp 5y ago
    There is an even bigger difference in that one exists and works today while the other requires a huge experiment in the way modern society works.
  - judge2020 5y ago
    A better analogy is that you already an ownership share in the nation state with citizenship - you have voting rights, a court system that works for you, you benefit monetarily by having a secure military and police force (thus not needing to directly pay for bodyguards or protection from some sort of mafia).
gremlinsinc 5y ago
I conceptualize it as a cryptocurrency w/ single identity, a max wallet amount (10 million perhaps -the rest is taxed 100%), and a utilization score...basically where those who make more transactions and hold less in their wallet get more UBI paid into it... then there just needs to be a mechanism to make the coin 'stable' to where 1 coin is about a loaf of bread... it'd need to maybe have separate account types though and gets a little murky around how businesses accept the coin.... and how that plays into the max-limit (goal being to limit inequality..and basically have a max un-equalness, where you've essentially "won the monopoly game" and now you can go out and help others win too...).

I conceptualize a UBI as a dividend, where every citizen has exactly one nontransferable ownership share of the nation state and has the right to share in it's profit.

nickpp 5y ago

You can get that today by simply buying into one of the many low cost ETFs available following the S&P500 index. No need to wait for the State to do it for you.

dragonwriter 5y ago
> You can get that today by simply buying into one of the many low cost ETFs available following the S&P500 index No, you can't get an equal share with every other citizen that way, especially if you are a lower-class worker without substantial surplus income.
- nickpp 5y ago
  Yes, it’s not equal and not free either. But we have it working today.
  - dragonwriter 5y ago
    > Yes, it’s not equal and not free either. But we have it working today. I mean, it's literally not working, even a little bit, for the vast majority of the people who would be net beneficiaries under a UBI. This is “let them eat cake” levels of out-of-touch.
    - nickpp 5y ago
      The greatest mass-pulling out of poverty I personally witnessed in my lifetime was when the communist states of Eastern Europe moved to capitalism. More of that, please.
      - yazaddaruvala 5y ago
        Capitalism is very good at allocating capital and as a result innovating to increase the "ceiling" of the human experience. Capitalism is very bad at increasing the "floor" of the human experience. Almost by definition, there is some threshold, X% of the population, where the marginal reward is no longer worth the effort (in lay terms - its not "worth it" to R&D and innovate to build amazing and cheap products for poor people). Trickle down economics typically doesn't happen[0]. This band typically is the target and victim of rent seeking - i.e. stagnation with a higher long-term price than innovation. Historically, Capitalism has always just exploited the floor through rent seeking until that "floor" dies a few decades later, then continues to exploit the new "floor". UBI is a focus on improving that "floor" of the human experience (different than other government programs by reducing stigma and increasing guarantees). If you can think of it, I would love to hear about a way to incentivize Capitalism to increase the "floor" of the human experience. If you want more capitalism, we need to figure out how do we incentivize more "Altruistic Capitalism" (maybe a different name?). There are some companies kinda starting to do this, I've heard them called "For Purpose Capitalism"/"For Purpose Companies" e.g. Tom's shoes, etc. [0] https://usafacts.org/articles/internet-access-students-at-home/#:~:text=However%2C%2034%25%20reported%20not%20having,not%20available%20in%20their%20area https://usafacts.org/articles/internet-access-students-at-ho.... and this is in the USA in-spite of charity, government subsidies and regulations for getting more access to the internet.
        e4e78a06 5y ago
        The floor of the human experience is not what got us to the moon and invented the transistor. > Trickle down economics typically doesn't happen Is that why basically everyone in America has some sort of always-connected smartphone with more computing power than a laptop from 2008 did? Citing telecom infrastructure as your example is just arguing in poor faith as it's well known American telecom infra is an oligopoly/monopoly. Just because there are some market failures doesn't mean we should throw the entire market out the window by implementing UBI.
        yazaddaruvala 5y ago
anonporridge 5y ago
Assuming you're not living as a poverty level wage slave and regularly have to choose between buying food and medicine, then sure.
- nickpp 5y ago
  Indeed, getting people out of poverty is a different issue, an issue no redistribution system has solved yet.
  - beaconstudios 5y ago
    That's just objectively not true - welfare systems stop people from becoming homeless or starving in the street all the time. Libertarianism/neoliberalism is the ideological model that doesn't care about the poor - social democracy isn't perfect but it is an improvement over just letting people die.
    - nickpp 5y ago
      It’s not about caring, it’s about results. Capitalism is the only system that pulled both countries and people out of poverty, because it’s the best system at motivating people to create value. Redistributing systems are naturally demotivating. The balance is being tried indeed but it’s a slippery slope in a democracy where people just learn that they can vote more money in their pockets.
      - beaconstudios 5y ago
        Social democracy is still capitalism, it just redirects some taxes into a welfare program. If eliminating poverty is the end goal then we need a safety net for those who fail.
        dragonwriter 5y ago
        > Social democracy is still capitalism It's still capitalism in much the same way that capitalism is still feudalism.
sharkjacobs 5y ago
> every citizen has exactly one nontransferable ownership share of the nation state > buying into one of the many low cost ETFs available following the S&P500 index There are some pretty big differences between these
- nickpp 5y ago
  There is an even bigger difference in that one exists and works today while the other requires a huge experiment in the way modern society works.
- judge2020 5y ago
  A better analogy is that you already an ownership share in the nation state with citizenship - you have voting rights, a court system that works for you, you benefit monetarily by having a secure military and police force (thus not needing to directly pay for bodyguards or protection from some sort of mafia).

gremlinsinc 5y ago

I conceptualize it as a cryptocurrency w/ single identity, a max wallet amount (10 million perhaps -the rest is taxed 100%), and a utilization score...basically where those who make more transactions and hold less in their wallet get more UBI paid into it... then there just needs to be a mechanism to make the coin 'stable' to where 1 coin is about a loaf of bread... it'd need to maybe have separate account types though and gets a little murky around how businesses accept the coin.... and how that plays into the max-limit (goal being to limit inequality..and basically have a max un-equalness, where you've essentially "won the monopoly game" and now you can go out and help others win too...).