7 ms·

Basic income is the first step to an empirically ethical society, which accounts for inherent human limitations and behaviors. Evolution is an extremely feckles

by FD3SA 13y ago

Basic income is the first step to an empirically ethical society, which accounts for inherent human limitations and behaviors. Evolution is an extremely feckless game, and thus far we've been trapped by its whims, endlessly struggling in a free-for-all battle for survival. In order to transcend and escape our evolutionary origins, we will first and foremost need to understand ourselves. How we came to be, what behaviors we're prone to, and what impact these have on our societies. Second, we will need technology which allows us to liberate ourselves from extreme labor, giving us free time to engage our societies in a calm, rational matter without our survival on the line. If these two conditions are met, then I believe humanity will transcend into a new golden age. As of this writing, I think we're made incredible progress on the second point, but are very far behind on the first. Furthermore, the US is an extremely complex nation, with a history that makes unity almost impossible except against foreign entities. The US needs to make an incredible amount of progress on the first point in order to even consider radical ideas like basic income. In fact, it is currently dialing back its SNAP (food stamps), which is part of its social assistance program. This is in the context of an already weak social safety net, by far the weakest of any western nation. Sadly, the US has a very long way to go. The commonwealth and Nordic countries, by comparison, are much further along.

ekianjo 13y ago
> Basic income is the first step to an empirically ethical society Not sure, but wouldn't basic income induce increased prices for commodities? If disposable income increases for everyone, then there is an incentive to increase prices everywhere (including accommodation which is a significant part of monthly expenses), thus negating the positive effects of basic income. Then you know what would happen next... people asking for an increased basic income, and the thing would spiral to the end.
- saraid216 13y ago
  Whether or not that's true, that doesn't actually respond to the part you're quoting. Unless you're arguing that an empirically ethical society is not possible?
  - dinkumthinkum 13y ago
    Well if it causes inflation then it calls into question whether it really is a "first step."
- jgj 13y ago
  Free from wage slavery, citizens receiving basic income could spend time producing their own commodities. They could learn trades not to use in a career, but to reduce their dependency on others. I also think the premise that prices would rise and create a GBI death-spiral is far from guaranteed. With a GBI behind them, citizens could potentially be more likely to start their own businesses, increasing competition and productivity and keeping prices well within reasonable range.
  - bcheung 13y ago
    Free from wage slavery? Technology is so much further along than it was 1000 years ago people barely have to work to have the same living standard as they had then. People generally only work for 8 hours a day. They can't spend the rest of their time doing that right now? Everyone is free to start a business. Tons of people do it while working a full time job. Tons of people go to college while they have a full time job. Those who are lazy won't and I see no reason why I should reward such behavior with my tax dollars.
    - orthecreedence 13y ago
      This is the type of attitude that hinders progress, and for no apparent reason. News flash: you're already rewarding people who sit around doing nothing with your tax dollars. GBI does the same, but at reduced overhead. Starting a business is hard. Starting a business while working full time is near impossible. It's not about laziness or incompetence. You just don't get the same business opportunities you do when working a full time job as you do when you're able to network and market yourself during regular hours. It can be done but it's really, really fucking hard. Also, working a full time job while in college isn't a good thing. Our country needs to provide education more universally if it wants to stay ahead of the curve. Saying "you can either live in indentured servitude to your student loans, work a full time job while in college, or be born with rich parents" doesn't really cut it. Sure, pull yourself up by your bootstraps and all that bullshit, but let's get serious here...the country doesn't work like it did in the 50s. GBI makes it possible for your average person to take an idea from conception to reality a lot easier. I'd say for all the companies I've started, the largest overhead was by far salaries and making sure the founders were able to put food on the table. With GBI, our businesses would have been 10x more successful, because investment capital would last 10x longer! This is good for business. Yes, you'll have lazy people who take advantage. But I'm willing to bet for every lazy person who just wants to sit around all day eating Little Debbies cake rolls, there are 100 who get bored and decide to actually do something with their lives. Let's also take art into account. Sure it's useless and stupid because the free market doesn't approve, but imagine a world without it. GBI would provide for those who thanklessly and actively make our country a more beautiful place.
- marcosdumay 13y ago
  Basic income means taxing people with income, and redistributing it to everybody. Where did you get the idea that disposable income increases for everyone? How could that be even possible?
  - ekianjo 13y ago
    > Where did you get the idea that disposable income increases for everyone? How could that be even possible? The government could be printing money to make that possible, as well, instead of financing it through taxes only.
    - bryanlarsen 13y ago
      Printing money causes inflation, which is effectively a wealth tax.
      - wnoise 13y ago
        A liquid wealth tax. The actually wealthy have many vehicles for hedging against inflation, from owning durable property, to complex financial instruments.
      - dragonwriter 13y ago
        Inflation in a currency is not a wealth tax, its a (inflating currency)-denominated-asset tax. There's a substantial difference.
      - bcheung 13y ago
        It depends on how that wealth is stored. Most wealthy people invest in things that are resilient or that even perform better under inflation. It's really the middle class that gets hit and the poor the worst because minimum wage doesn't go up that fast but prices definitely do.
      - stalcottsmith 13y ago
        It's more complicated than that. As a first approximation inflation is a transfer of wealth from from savers to debtors. However, there are many under-appreciated details based on tax implications of such things as paying real taxes on illusory income. (nominal gains which result in an real-after-tax loss) I learned a lot about this from this guy: http://danielamerman.com/ http://danielamerman.com/
- dragonwriter 13y ago
  > Not sure, but wouldn't basic income induce increased prices for commodities? Yes, it would be expected to shift the demand curve somewhat, because you'd be redistributing income to people with a higher propensity to spend, increasing demand. > If disposable income increases for everyone, then there is an incentive to increase prices everywhere (including accommodation which is a significant part of monthly expenses), thus negating the positive effects of basic income. Reducing, not negating: the normal effect of more money in the hands of people with a given desire to buy a product is that the price goes up somewhat and the market clearing volume traded goes up somewhat, not that the whole increase in income is reflected in price increases. > Then you know what would happen next... people asking for an increased basic income, and the thing would spiral to the end. If you tie it to a dedicated revenue stream and set the benefit amount based on the revenue divided among the eligible population, you establish a control mechanism.
  - stcredzero 13y ago
    If you tie it to a dedicated revenue stream and set the benefit amount based on the revenue divided among the eligible population, you establish a control mechanism. How do you keep some demagogue from campaigning on abolishing this mechanism and just giving people more money?
    - dragonwriter 13y ago
      > How do you keep some demagogue from campaigning on abolishing this mechanism and just giving people more money? You don't. People can run with any platform they want. Of course, pretty much this idea has been raised against even the idea of democratic government for centuries -- that if the masses could just vote for people to give them money, they would. Strangely, that doesn't seem to happen. There'll be plenty of people that understand the problems with that idea and have self-interest in communicating those problems -- and they will be disproportionately the people with the resources to effectively sell the idea. Frankly, I'd be more worried about the system being eroded by people campaigning to limit the dedicated revenue stream than by abandoning limiting controls. (Not that I necessary think that method of control is necessary in the first place, just that its an available option.)
- hyp0 13y ago
  yes, if it increased income. but it still reduces admin cost
- Houshalter 13y ago
  The same amount of money would exist, it would just be distributed differently. Poor people would be able to buy more things, so the things that are disproportionately bought by poor people would go up slightly. Conversely rich people might buy fewer yachts, lowering the price. Despite the slight price increase, it would still be a net benefit for poor people.
- JoeAltmaier 13y ago
  Worse, there used to be a concern that, given food and housing, people would stop trying. Once the comforts of life are a civil right, the great majority might stop making any effort at all. Its bound to be a major disruption. McD's will have to automate; you'll need a Roomba for your lawn; everybody in the world will want to come here regardless of the job situation. Maybe that's all right; maybe we can sustain it. But it will be a rough couple of years.
marcosdumay 13y ago
It's not that easy to escape from Evolution. We can delay it for a time, if we keep our exponential growth going. Unfortunately, not for a really long time, unless we discover some way to grow beyond our galaxy. Anyway, basic income is important for this century we are on. For our lifetime. Things will get very ugly very fast if we automate everything and don't have some functional redistributing program before.
- Nzen 13y ago
  The centralizing power of automation is much more pronounced now than it has been in the past. This stems from the current focus on knowledge work tasks rather than repetitious, small problem-space labor. IBM's watson will price out radiologists and their pattern finding ilk. I found Martin Ford's [lights in the tunnel](http://www.thelightsinthetunnel.com/ http://www.thelightsinthetunnel.com/) enlightening and concerning. He too suggests a basic income.
javajosh 13y ago
>...I believe humanity will transcend into a new golden age. I was amused by my brain which, perhaps inevitably, read "golden age" with a distinct Alpha Centauri voice.
Pinatubo 13y ago
> empirically ethical society Did you mean "ethics informed by empirics" or something like that? "Empirically ethical" is a logical contradiction.

by FD3SA 13y ago

ekianjo 13y ago

> Basic income is the first step to an empirically ethical society Not sure, but wouldn't basic income induce increased prices for commodities? If disposable income increases for everyone, then there is an incentive to increase prices everywhere (including accommodation which is a significant part of monthly expenses), thus negating the positive effects of basic income. Then you know what would happen next... people asking for an increased basic income, and the thing would spiral to the end.

saraid216 13y ago
Whether or not that's true, that doesn't actually respond to the part you're quoting. Unless you're arguing that an empirically ethical society is not possible?
- dinkumthinkum 13y ago
  Well if it causes inflation then it calls into question whether it really is a "first step."
jgj 13y ago
Free from wage slavery, citizens receiving basic income could spend time producing their own commodities. They could learn trades not to use in a career, but to reduce their dependency on others. I also think the premise that prices would rise and create a GBI death-spiral is far from guaranteed. With a GBI behind them, citizens could potentially be more likely to start their own businesses, increasing competition and productivity and keeping prices well within reasonable range.
- bcheung 13y ago
  Free from wage slavery? Technology is so much further along than it was 1000 years ago people barely have to work to have the same living standard as they had then. People generally only work for 8 hours a day. They can't spend the rest of their time doing that right now? Everyone is free to start a business. Tons of people do it while working a full time job. Tons of people go to college while they have a full time job. Those who are lazy won't and I see no reason why I should reward such behavior with my tax dollars.
  - orthecreedence 13y ago
    This is the type of attitude that hinders progress, and for no apparent reason. News flash: you're already rewarding people who sit around doing nothing with your tax dollars. GBI does the same, but at reduced overhead. Starting a business is hard. Starting a business while working full time is near impossible. It's not about laziness or incompetence. You just don't get the same business opportunities you do when working a full time job as you do when you're able to network and market yourself during regular hours. It can be done but it's really, really fucking hard. Also, working a full time job while in college isn't a good thing. Our country needs to provide education more universally if it wants to stay ahead of the curve. Saying "you can either live in indentured servitude to your student loans, work a full time job while in college, or be born with rich parents" doesn't really cut it. Sure, pull yourself up by your bootstraps and all that bullshit, but let's get serious here...the country doesn't work like it did in the 50s. GBI makes it possible for your average person to take an idea from conception to reality a lot easier. I'd say for all the companies I've started, the largest overhead was by far salaries and making sure the founders were able to put food on the table. With GBI, our businesses would have been 10x more successful, because investment capital would last 10x longer! This is good for business. Yes, you'll have lazy people who take advantage. But I'm willing to bet for every lazy person who just wants to sit around all day eating Little Debbies cake rolls, there are 100 who get bored and decide to actually do something with their lives. Let's also take art into account. Sure it's useless and stupid because the free market doesn't approve, but imagine a world without it. GBI would provide for those who thanklessly and actively make our country a more beautiful place.
marcosdumay 13y ago
Basic income means taxing people with income, and redistributing it to everybody. Where did you get the idea that disposable income increases for everyone? How could that be even possible?
- ekianjo 13y ago
  > Where did you get the idea that disposable income increases for everyone? How could that be even possible? The government could be printing money to make that possible, as well, instead of financing it through taxes only.
  - bryanlarsen 13y ago
    Printing money causes inflation, which is effectively a wealth tax.
    - wnoise 13y ago
      A liquid wealth tax. The actually wealthy have many vehicles for hedging against inflation, from owning durable property, to complex financial instruments.
    - dragonwriter 13y ago
      Inflation in a currency is not a wealth tax, its a (inflating currency)-denominated-asset tax. There's a substantial difference.
    - bcheung 13y ago
      It depends on how that wealth is stored. Most wealthy people invest in things that are resilient or that even perform better under inflation. It's really the middle class that gets hit and the poor the worst because minimum wage doesn't go up that fast but prices definitely do.
    - stalcottsmith 13y ago
      It's more complicated than that. As a first approximation inflation is a transfer of wealth from from savers to debtors. However, there are many under-appreciated details based on tax implications of such things as paying real taxes on illusory income. (nominal gains which result in an real-after-tax loss) I learned a lot about this from this guy: http://danielamerman.com/ http://danielamerman.com/
dragonwriter 13y ago
> Not sure, but wouldn't basic income induce increased prices for commodities? Yes, it would be expected to shift the demand curve somewhat, because you'd be redistributing income to people with a higher propensity to spend, increasing demand. > If disposable income increases for everyone, then there is an incentive to increase prices everywhere (including accommodation which is a significant part of monthly expenses), thus negating the positive effects of basic income. Reducing, not negating: the normal effect of more money in the hands of people with a given desire to buy a product is that the price goes up somewhat and the market clearing volume traded goes up somewhat, not that the whole increase in income is reflected in price increases. > Then you know what would happen next... people asking for an increased basic income, and the thing would spiral to the end. If you tie it to a dedicated revenue stream and set the benefit amount based on the revenue divided among the eligible population, you establish a control mechanism.
- stcredzero 13y ago
  If you tie it to a dedicated revenue stream and set the benefit amount based on the revenue divided among the eligible population, you establish a control mechanism. How do you keep some demagogue from campaigning on abolishing this mechanism and just giving people more money?
  - dragonwriter 13y ago
    > How do you keep some demagogue from campaigning on abolishing this mechanism and just giving people more money? You don't. People can run with any platform they want. Of course, pretty much this idea has been raised against even the idea of democratic government for centuries -- that if the masses could just vote for people to give them money, they would. Strangely, that doesn't seem to happen. There'll be plenty of people that understand the problems with that idea and have self-interest in communicating those problems -- and they will be disproportionately the people with the resources to effectively sell the idea. Frankly, I'd be more worried about the system being eroded by people campaigning to limit the dedicated revenue stream than by abandoning limiting controls. (Not that I necessary think that method of control is necessary in the first place, just that its an available option.)
hyp0 13y ago
yes, if it increased income. but it still reduces admin cost
Houshalter 13y ago
The same amount of money would exist, it would just be distributed differently. Poor people would be able to buy more things, so the things that are disproportionately bought by poor people would go up slightly. Conversely rich people might buy fewer yachts, lowering the price. Despite the slight price increase, it would still be a net benefit for poor people.
JoeAltmaier 13y ago
Worse, there used to be a concern that, given food and housing, people would stop trying. Once the comforts of life are a civil right, the great majority might stop making any effort at all. Its bound to be a major disruption. McD's will have to automate; you'll need a Roomba for your lawn; everybody in the world will want to come here regardless of the job situation. Maybe that's all right; maybe we can sustain it. But it will be a rough couple of years.

marcosdumay 13y ago

It's not that easy to escape from Evolution. We can delay it for a time, if we keep our exponential growth going. Unfortunately, not for a really long time, unless we discover some way to grow beyond our galaxy. Anyway, basic income is important for this century we are on. For our lifetime. Things will get very ugly very fast if we automate everything and don't have some functional redistributing program before.

Nzen 13y ago
The centralizing power of automation is much more pronounced now than it has been in the past. This stems from the current focus on knowledge work tasks rather than repetitious, small problem-space labor. IBM's watson will price out radiologists and their pattern finding ilk. I found Martin Ford's [lights in the tunnel](http://www.thelightsinthetunnel.com/ http://www.thelightsinthetunnel.com/) enlightening and concerning. He too suggests a basic income.

javajosh 13y ago

>...I believe humanity will transcend into a new golden age. I was amused by my brain which, perhaps inevitably, read "golden age" with a distinct Alpha Centauri voice.

Pinatubo 13y ago

> empirically ethical society Did you mean "ethics informed by empirics" or something like that? "Empirically ethical" is a logical contradiction.