4 ms·
>A much more efficient way to help people is just to give them money directly, and then people can spend it on whatever they think they need. Capital tends to
by salawat 4y ago
>A much more efficient way to help people is just to give them money directly, and then people can spend it on whatever they think they need.
Capital tends to accrete capital. If you aren't actively hostile to passive capital accretion, eventually you'll end up with a handful of people making most of the capital allocation decisions.
- mordae 4y agoI don't believe it works like that when everyone has their needs met, specifically with UBI. Possible losses from breaking the law and getting caught would drive the price of white-collar crime up non-linearly. It would also be easier to unionize, which would help combat inequality.
- imtringued 4y agoWhat he means is that in a system with exponential growth, people who reinvest will eventually become a much bigger part of the economy than those who don't (for whatever reason). People with a disproportionate amount of power may use that power to get rid of UBI.
- ModernMech 4y ago> making most of the capital allocation decisions. Unfortunately "making the most" sometimes (usually) means manufacturing fidget spinners for direct landfill deposit, instead of allocating resources for housing, healthcare, food, and education.
- salawat 4y ago...or creating transaction opportunities by inserting transaction processing medium where none previously existed. See the bloody scooter rental people, printer companies trying to funnel people to ink by subscription, Keurig/Juicero. Practically every fintech ever.