4 ms·

Game of Thrones isn't actually made of dollar bills, it's ultimately made of labour. And a basic income would make that labour available without requiring that

by glennsl 12y ago

Game of Thrones isn't actually made of dollar bills, it's ultimately made of labour. And a basic income would make that labour available without requiring that the project cover living costs. Which means most of the cost would just disappear. How do connections relate to paid content? Do they somehow come at a massive cost? I did point out that I might be constructing a strawman, but seeing as you have yet to propose any alternative and copyright is in fact the status quo, it seemed like a reasonable assumption. Perhaps I should have added a question mark for emphasis, but feel free to clarify your position at any time.

sillysaurus3 12y ago
The point of basic income isn't to cover everything one could want out of life. It's to cover basic living expenses. Basic housing, basic food, a basic life. If basic income existed, then people would want more. That's not a strike against basic income, but just the opposite: it's a reason why basic income is more likely to work than, say, socialism. People who want more out of life can have it, whereas people who are satisfied with little can have little. The cost of specialized labor will never disappear. I'd rather not subject my personal belief system to public analysis, because the average public opinion on beliefs is an average belief system, and the average belief system in any era has almost always been crazy.
- glennsl 12y ago
  Sure people would want more than just the basic necessities, but it would still offset the cost by a significant amount. Having your living costs covered and being able to take a break from a job that pays well to work on something you are passionate about without having to fear homelessness and starvation makes a big difference. People have been forking up $3-4 million for very niche adventure and old-school rpg games. Star Citizen is closing in on $60 million. This is with crowdfunding still in its infancy and projects that have orders of magnitude less interest than Game of Thrones. If people, both producers and consumers, don't care enough about Game of Thrones to make it happen, then so be it. But I don't believe that would be the case.
  - sillysaurus3 12y ago
    Actually, if basic income is implemented, the cost will be much higher than the current costs, not lower. Basic income is a redistribution. You can't give a bunch of people money without also causing inflation. The question is whether basic income adds an acceptable amount of inflation. It definitely won't help with production costs, though.
    - glennsl 12y ago
      How would redistribution cause inflation? In order to redistribute, you would need to collect the money to distribute through taxes, removing just as much money from the system as it injects, thus maintaining average purchasing power. If the money would just be printed, it would of course cause inflation, but that's not redistribution, it's just distribution.
      - sillysaurus3 12y ago
        Hmm. You're right that the two concepts were muddled in my mind. Are you sure that basic income won't be implemented via the "print money" approach? It seems like people may have major problems with the idea of transferring a large amount of wealth to others if they also see their own money dwindling as a result. In other words, people seem to notice inflation less than taxation. It still doesn't make sense to me that basic income will reduce costs in other sectors, but I'm probably just not smart enough to understand how.
        glennsl 12y ago
        It might be conceivable to fund a basic income via money creation, but that would require more than simply printing money, a complete revamp of the banking system and monetary policy. It's an interesting idea, but somewhat above my head. I'm from Norway, where we already have a big welfare system funded by a progressive tax system. And which would already be able to fund most of a basic income. So obviously the idea of redistribution isn't that big of an issue around these parts. As a result, I'm perhaps too quick to assume funding would be done through taxation. Not sure what you mean by "other sectors". Other relative to which sector(s)?

by glennsl 12y ago

sillysaurus3 12y ago

The point of basic income isn't to cover everything one could want out of life. It's to cover basic living expenses. Basic housing, basic food, a basic life. If basic income existed, then people would want more. That's not a strike against basic income, but just the opposite: it's a reason why basic income is more likely to work than, say, socialism. People who want more out of life can have it, whereas people who are satisfied with little can have little. The cost of specialized labor will never disappear. I'd rather not subject my personal belief system to public analysis, because the average public opinion on beliefs is an average belief system, and the average belief system in any era has almost always been crazy.

glennsl 12y ago
Sure people would want more than just the basic necessities, but it would still offset the cost by a significant amount. Having your living costs covered and being able to take a break from a job that pays well to work on something you are passionate about without having to fear homelessness and starvation makes a big difference. People have been forking up $3-4 million for very niche adventure and old-school rpg games. Star Citizen is closing in on $60 million. This is with crowdfunding still in its infancy and projects that have orders of magnitude less interest than Game of Thrones. If people, both producers and consumers, don't care enough about Game of Thrones to make it happen, then so be it. But I don't believe that would be the case.
- sillysaurus3 12y ago
  Actually, if basic income is implemented, the cost will be much higher than the current costs, not lower. Basic income is a redistribution. You can't give a bunch of people money without also causing inflation. The question is whether basic income adds an acceptable amount of inflation. It definitely won't help with production costs, though.
  - glennsl 12y ago
    How would redistribution cause inflation? In order to redistribute, you would need to collect the money to distribute through taxes, removing just as much money from the system as it injects, thus maintaining average purchasing power. If the money would just be printed, it would of course cause inflation, but that's not redistribution, it's just distribution.
    - sillysaurus3 12y ago
      Hmm. You're right that the two concepts were muddled in my mind. Are you sure that basic income won't be implemented via the "print money" approach? It seems like people may have major problems with the idea of transferring a large amount of wealth to others if they also see their own money dwindling as a result. In other words, people seem to notice inflation less than taxation. It still doesn't make sense to me that basic income will reduce costs in other sectors, but I'm probably just not smart enough to understand how.
      - glennsl 12y ago
        It might be conceivable to fund a basic income via money creation, but that would require more than simply printing money, a complete revamp of the banking system and monetary policy. It's an interesting idea, but somewhat above my head. I'm from Norway, where we already have a big welfare system funded by a progressive tax system. And which would already be able to fund most of a basic income. So obviously the idea of redistribution isn't that big of an issue around these parts. As a result, I'm perhaps too quick to assume funding would be done through taxation. Not sure what you mean by "other sectors". Other relative to which sector(s)?