4 ms·

>Go Ireland, great scheme. I wish we had it over here in the UK. It's a bad scheme, it divide's your population into people who have to create "wealth", and pe

>Go Ireland, great scheme. I wish we had it over here in the UK. It's a bad scheme, it divide's your population into people who have to create "wealth", and people who create "art". Yes creating art (or preserving rare potatoes[1]) should be supported by your government if it's not survivable in a capitalistic society, however having different rights because of your occupation is not better then the middle ages. [1] https://irishpotatofederation.ie/varieties/ https://irishpotatofederation.ie/varieties/

jimnotgym 8mo ago
Or it divides them into people that create cultural wealth and people who create mere monetary wealth. So you do agree that art should be supported by government I see, so how would you do it?
- BSDobelix 8mo ago
  >Or it divides them into people that create cultural wealth and people who create mere monetary wealth. That's what i meant with the potatoes, the government pays for the field with the rare potatoes, and the standardized potatoes make wealth. >So you do agree that art should be supported by government I see, so how would you do it? With free housing (art community's), tax free stuff (for small to medium sales etc) like it's done today. And to be honest i think 99.5% of artist dont do a full-time-art-job, most of them do other stuff too...and that's good. Is my friend who plays the didgeridoo in his free time now an artist if he declares it's suddenly his full-time occupation? One example, why exclude people like Geo-scientists who sometimes dont even get any money (except they work for big-oil or the state). On a base your are right, not everything that's good for societies is compatible within a capitalistic system. But this is just a complete wrong step.
  - jimnotgym 8mo ago
    But giving housing or tax breaks needs lots of admin. Isn't that less efficient? Giving housing forces people to live in certain places. What if you are a traveling musician, you might be better off with a van. It is like the Victorian view of giving charity. 'Don't give them money, give them food', like the people don't know what they need.
    - BSDobelix 8mo ago
      >But giving housing or tax breaks needs lots of admin. Isn't that less efficient? Art community's are most always self managing, i would argue finding out who makes art is much more complicated. >Giving housing forces people to live in certain places. No one is forced to take free housing or being an artist, if you want something for free you have to play by rules. >like the people don't know what they need True, but why are people who are artist different from anyone else, that's my critique. Why is creating art more important then preserving art, being a scientist, a rare-potato-farmer, a retro-game-preserver...or a small town politician?
      - jimnotgym 8mo ago
        > True, but why are people who are artist different from anyone else, that's my critique. I don't think it is helpful to frame it in terms of, 'sure they should get it, but what about other people doing public good? Since the others can't get it, the artists shouldn't'. How about saying, 'this is a great start, how do we get a broader scheme for other philanthropic causes'?
        BSDobelix 8mo ago
        >I don't think it is helpful to frame it in terms of, 'sure they should get it, but what about other people doing public good? Since the others can't get it, the artists shouldn't'. I think it's the only logical way, same right for everyone, occupation is not a factor for additional rights. > 'this is a great start, And the end...sadly.
  - jmye 8mo ago
    > Is my friend who plays the didgeridoo in his free time now an artist if he declares it's suddenly his full-time occupation? Is this really a risk, given UBI is generally minimal? Anyone who wants to live on it full-time to support their art, whatever it may be, is welcome to it. It's not like they're sitting back and getting rich, here. > One example, why exclude people like Geo-scientists who sometimes dont even get any money (except they work for big-oil or the state). Because "UBI for everyone who deserves it" is a much harder, bigger step, and fighting against small wins because they don't include literally every single outlier case you can think of is absurdly non-productive, not to mention that it's a vacuous counter-argument.
- qualitylearing 8mo ago
  [dead]
  - gamma42 8mo ago
    "Paying for the world to run". The world goes regardless of those who steal wealth.
    - philipallstar 8mo ago
      Of course. The objection is only to the stealing of wealth being increased to give it to certain blessed artists.
  - balamatom 8mo ago
    No, the banana taped to the wall is to store the value during times when the world is not running
  - whywhywhywhy 8mo ago
    > banana taped to a wall Taking this on face value without the rest of his oeuvre as context and value is being disingenuous.
    - gruez 8mo ago
      Looking at the wikipedia page it looks like the "context" was "I was only pretending to be stupid". What am I missing?
      - whywhywhywhy 8mo ago
        Yeah what a shock an artist who's previous works include a lifelike sculpture of Pope John Paul II hit by a meteor was doing something comical https://www.perrotin.com/artists/Maurizio_Cattelan/2/la-nona-ora/15420 https://www.perrotin.com/artists/Maurizio_Cattelan/2/la-nona...
  - micromacrofoot 8mo ago
- instig007 8mo ago
  > create cultural wealth and people who create mere monetary wealth the wealth in this case isn't monetary, it's material production, the productive work of people who create material objects, including your food and shelter. If it was about monetary stuff the government would just print the artists whatever amount of money they need. But that money has to be spent to buy from those who produce the stuff the artists need to live. Who's sponsoring the wealth producers?
  - jimnotgym 8mo ago
    The UBI money gets spent by the artist though, some on food, probably more on rent. The rent money probably gets hoarded by the landlord, the other goes to people selling real objects. That is real money back into the economy.
    - instig007 8mo ago
      the unearned money gets spent on real produce you were to say.
lucideer 8mo ago
I agree with your sentiment but in practice that criticism only shows that this measure is insufficient, not that it's a net negative. I think it should go a lot further than it does but it seems unambiguously positive even by your own framing.
the_gipsy 8mo ago
> people who have to create "wealth" most people don't "create wealth". They're forced to serve up half of their awake time to someone that is "wealthy", most likely through inheritance.
- 1234letshaveatw 8mo ago
  And now they're forced to serve up some of their awake time to artists
  - lc9er 8mo ago
    What fraction of that time goes to subsidizing the exponentially wealthier? We could just tax the hell out of the rich and and make better lives for the vast majority of us, while wealth hoarders still get to “win” at the game of life.
    - BSDobelix 8mo ago
      That's whataboutism. >We could just tax the hell out of the rich Then they leave your country...however if someone could make it international....
- int_19h 8mo ago
  Most people do create wealth. That is exactly how those wealthy people become wealthy - by having someone create wealth for them, and then appropriating most of it.
  - the_gipsy 8mo ago
    Let's be clear: the appropriation mostly consists of leveraging existing (inherited) wealth and other social privileges.
    - int_19h 8mo ago
      Leveraging ownership of capital, more specifically. But lest we forget, all this wealth is still protected by people with guns. These days, those people normally work for the state rather than directly for the wealthy, but the latter can also leverage their wealth to steer politics such that the state does violence on their behalf to protect their property as needed.
elxr 8mo ago
You get different rewards, not different rights. It's the same as cities/governments spending on free public basketball courts/tennis courts/running tracks. I come from a country with none of those things, and the difference that makes on the average fitness/skill level of the population is massive compared to places where those things exist. Both basic income, and public sporting infrastructure have a significant (but not unreasonable) upfront cost, but the payoff in even 2 years time will be massive. Provided the economics check out, there's no reason to not give it a shot.

jimnotgym 8mo ago

Or it divides them into people that create cultural wealth and people who create mere monetary wealth. So you do agree that art should be supported by government I see, so how would you do it?

BSDobelix 8mo ago
>Or it divides them into people that create cultural wealth and people who create mere monetary wealth. That's what i meant with the potatoes, the government pays for the field with the rare potatoes, and the standardized potatoes make wealth. >So you do agree that art should be supported by government I see, so how would you do it? With free housing (art community's), tax free stuff (for small to medium sales etc) like it's done today. And to be honest i think 99.5% of artist dont do a full-time-art-job, most of them do other stuff too...and that's good. Is my friend who plays the didgeridoo in his free time now an artist if he declares it's suddenly his full-time occupation? One example, why exclude people like Geo-scientists who sometimes dont even get any money (except they work for big-oil or the state). On a base your are right, not everything that's good for societies is compatible within a capitalistic system. But this is just a complete wrong step.
- jimnotgym 8mo ago
  But giving housing or tax breaks needs lots of admin. Isn't that less efficient? Giving housing forces people to live in certain places. What if you are a traveling musician, you might be better off with a van. It is like the Victorian view of giving charity. 'Don't give them money, give them food', like the people don't know what they need.
  - BSDobelix 8mo ago
    >But giving housing or tax breaks needs lots of admin. Isn't that less efficient? Art community's are most always self managing, i would argue finding out who makes art is much more complicated. >Giving housing forces people to live in certain places. No one is forced to take free housing or being an artist, if you want something for free you have to play by rules. >like the people don't know what they need True, but why are people who are artist different from anyone else, that's my critique. Why is creating art more important then preserving art, being a scientist, a rare-potato-farmer, a retro-game-preserver...or a small town politician?
    - jimnotgym 8mo ago
      > True, but why are people who are artist different from anyone else, that's my critique. I don't think it is helpful to frame it in terms of, 'sure they should get it, but what about other people doing public good? Since the others can't get it, the artists shouldn't'. How about saying, 'this is a great start, how do we get a broader scheme for other philanthropic causes'?
      - BSDobelix 8mo ago
        >I don't think it is helpful to frame it in terms of, 'sure they should get it, but what about other people doing public good? Since the others can't get it, the artists shouldn't'. I think it's the only logical way, same right for everyone, occupation is not a factor for additional rights. > 'this is a great start, And the end...sadly.
- jmye 8mo ago
  > Is my friend who plays the didgeridoo in his free time now an artist if he declares it's suddenly his full-time occupation? Is this really a risk, given UBI is generally minimal? Anyone who wants to live on it full-time to support their art, whatever it may be, is welcome to it. It's not like they're sitting back and getting rich, here. > One example, why exclude people like Geo-scientists who sometimes dont even get any money (except they work for big-oil or the state). Because "UBI for everyone who deserves it" is a much harder, bigger step, and fighting against small wins because they don't include literally every single outlier case you can think of is absurdly non-productive, not to mention that it's a vacuous counter-argument.
qualitylearing 8mo ago
[dead]
- gamma42 8mo ago
  "Paying for the world to run". The world goes regardless of those who steal wealth.
  - philipallstar 8mo ago
    Of course. The objection is only to the stealing of wealth being increased to give it to certain blessed artists.
- balamatom 8mo ago
  No, the banana taped to the wall is to store the value during times when the world is not running
- whywhywhywhy 8mo ago
  > banana taped to a wall Taking this on face value without the rest of his oeuvre as context and value is being disingenuous.
  - gruez 8mo ago
    Looking at the wikipedia page it looks like the "context" was "I was only pretending to be stupid". What am I missing?
    - whywhywhywhy 8mo ago
      Yeah what a shock an artist who's previous works include a lifelike sculpture of Pope John Paul II hit by a meteor was doing something comical https://www.perrotin.com/artists/Maurizio_Cattelan/2/la-nona-ora/15420 https://www.perrotin.com/artists/Maurizio_Cattelan/2/la-nona...
- micromacrofoot 8mo ago
instig007 8mo ago
> create cultural wealth and people who create mere monetary wealth the wealth in this case isn't monetary, it's material production, the productive work of people who create material objects, including your food and shelter. If it was about monetary stuff the government would just print the artists whatever amount of money they need. But that money has to be spent to buy from those who produce the stuff the artists need to live. Who's sponsoring the wealth producers?
- jimnotgym 8mo ago
  The UBI money gets spent by the artist though, some on food, probably more on rent. The rent money probably gets hoarded by the landlord, the other goes to people selling real objects. That is real money back into the economy.
  - instig007 8mo ago
    the unearned money gets spent on real produce you were to say.

lucideer 8mo ago

I agree with your sentiment but in practice that criticism only shows that this measure is insufficient, not that it's a net negative. I think it should go a lot further than it does but it seems unambiguously positive even by your own framing.

the_gipsy 8mo ago

> people who have to create "wealth" most people don't "create wealth". They're forced to serve up half of their awake time to someone that is "wealthy", most likely through inheritance.

1234letshaveatw 8mo ago
And now they're forced to serve up some of their awake time to artists
- lc9er 8mo ago
  What fraction of that time goes to subsidizing the exponentially wealthier? We could just tax the hell out of the rich and and make better lives for the vast majority of us, while wealth hoarders still get to “win” at the game of life.
  - BSDobelix 8mo ago
    That's whataboutism. >We could just tax the hell out of the rich Then they leave your country...however if someone could make it international....
int_19h 8mo ago
Most people do create wealth. That is exactly how those wealthy people become wealthy - by having someone create wealth for them, and then appropriating most of it.
- the_gipsy 8mo ago
  Let's be clear: the appropriation mostly consists of leveraging existing (inherited) wealth and other social privileges.
  - int_19h 8mo ago
    Leveraging ownership of capital, more specifically. But lest we forget, all this wealth is still protected by people with guns. These days, those people normally work for the state rather than directly for the wealthy, but the latter can also leverage their wealth to steer politics such that the state does violence on their behalf to protect their property as needed.

elxr 8mo ago

You get different rewards, not different rights. It's the same as cities/governments spending on free public basketball courts/tennis courts/running tracks. I come from a country with none of those things, and the difference that makes on the average fitness/skill level of the population is massive compared to places where those things exist. Both basic income, and public sporting infrastructure have a significant (but not unreasonable) upfront cost, but the payoff in even 2 years time will be massive. Provided the economics check out, there's no reason to not give it a shot.