3 ms·

It is nonsense to base the argument on a Dollar-equivalent. If someone were to invent a machine that produced food requiring 10% of current work for any given a

by iSnow 13y ago

It is nonsense to base the argument on a Dollar-equivalent. If someone were to invent a machine that produced food requiring 10% of current work for any given amount of food, the Dollar-equiv necessary to survive would drop. Therefore technological advances lower the baseline of how much work is necessary to survive. Obviously this has happened between the middle ages and now, therefore back then hunger crises did occur and now they don't (speaking of western industrialized nations of course). Also I don't see why you are feeling at leisure to hijack this to push a libertarian agenda (taxe == coercion).

ctdonath 13y ago
What's the value of a dollar? What is the value of basic human needs? At the moment under the circumstances I live in, and trying to keep the discussion simple and plain (yes, there are complexities - establish the baseline & ground rules and proceed to fine details on your own), for sake of argument I'll accept the USA legal poverty line (which any guaranteed basic income would match) as equalling basic human income need (despite it being 20x world median income, adjust figures as you see fit) and ignoring inflation for the moment, we get about $30/day. Fixing the dollar to 1/30th of what basic normal daily needs costs seems sensible; a machine reducing those costs by 10% would indeed play havoc with the vast relativities of currency economics, but for sake of discussion let's just say whatever it takes to meet basic daily needs, that cost is pegged at $30 (or vice versa). Yes, it's hard to discuss this as all the factors are so danged squishy. I'm trying to get a handle on them (hence my above post, which was mostly me just ruminating out loud). The real value of anything, insofar as outside human existence nothing has value, is based on the basic needs for sustaining daily existence - a value which I'm enumerating as "$30". As for hijacking, methinks this is a quite sensible response to an article suggesting most people shouldn't work because the highly productive few should just carry the weight of everyone's needs without compensation. As for "taxes == coercion", I mean that in the most objective way. Taxes are, in fact, paid under coercion: if you don't pay, you'll be made to suffer. You may pay those taxes with the gladdest heart and complete consent to the system it enables, but the coercion is still there.

by iSnow 13y ago

ctdonath 13y ago

What's the value of a dollar? What is the value of basic human needs? At the moment under the circumstances I live in, and trying to keep the discussion simple and plain (yes, there are complexities - establish the baseline & ground rules and proceed to fine details on your own), for sake of argument I'll accept the USA legal poverty line (which any guaranteed basic income would match) as equalling basic human income need (despite it being 20x world median income, adjust figures as you see fit) and ignoring inflation for the moment, we get about $30/day. Fixing the dollar to 1/30th of what basic normal daily needs costs seems sensible; a machine reducing those costs by 10% would indeed play havoc with the vast relativities of currency economics, but for sake of discussion let's just say whatever it takes to meet basic daily needs, that cost is pegged at $30 (or vice versa). Yes, it's hard to discuss this as all the factors are so danged squishy. I'm trying to get a handle on them (hence my above post, which was mostly me just ruminating out loud). The real value of anything, insofar as outside human existence nothing has value, is based on the basic needs for sustaining daily existence - a value which I'm enumerating as "$30". As for hijacking, methinks this is a quite sensible response to an article suggesting most people shouldn't work because the highly productive few should just carry the weight of everyone's needs without compensation. As for "taxes == coercion", I mean that in the most objective way. Taxes are, in fact, paid under coercion: if you don't pay, you'll be made to suffer. You may pay those taxes with the gladdest heart and complete consent to the system it enables, but the coercion is still there.