3 ms·

> I would still posit that the second order marginal utility of those 20 cents is higher in hands of somebody who needs it. In the same way you talk about how t

> I would still posit that the second order marginal utility of those 20 cents is higher in hands of somebody who needs it. In the same way you talk about how that 20 cents impacts the derivative of “progress”, think about how those 20 cents would impact the derivative of the people it’s redistributed to. The innovation that happens because people build companies and technologies that they go on to sell in public markets impacts every single human going forward as long as there is not a disaster. Meanwhile, the 20 cents of marginal utility is used once and according to the recent study on how people used a universal basic income, not to great effect. You only need one transistor, vaccine, airplane, refrigeration level invention every few decades to justify how much more impactful it is.

gen220 2y ago
> The 20 cents of marginal utility is used once and [...] not to great effect. I made no reference to UBI. I don't think UBI is a solution to the system of poverty. But we don't need to go there. There are ways to redistribute wealth that are less direct than SNAP and UBI. The public education system, our transportation infrastructure, the funding of basic research (which contributed to the transistor, modern vaccines, and modern passenger air travel). There is a whole spectrum of investment between "give a man a fish" and "fund the construction of a competitive industry of privately-owned fish farms to feed people fish"; and it's worth understanding why we're often presented with the false choice between them, instead of the options in between. It's not because the one on the right is most efficient.