4 ms·
That may be true, but dantheman was simply correcting jokoon's implicit claim that paying people money is good in itself ("since it's injecting money that incre
by JesperRavn 11y ago
That may be true, but dantheman was simply correcting jokoon's implicit claim that paying people money is good in itself ("since it's injecting money that increase consumption, which in turn also increase business and growth.")
I think there are good arguments for basic income, but they get obscured by the fact that it has become a political campaign, so people like you argue for their own side rather than correcting people who support basic income but for the wrong reason.
You are correct that there are reasons why basic income be more efficient than other redistribution measures. But this doesn't contradict the fact that the money has to come from somewhere, and it isn't relevant to this particular thread of discussion.
- jokoon 11y agoVoting a budget is a tricky subject. Sometimes ideals will get you nowhere, but I think developed countries have showed that redistributing improve not only the country as a whole, but it also improve the status of the wealthiest, the wealthy people will benefit from the fact that people are fed, educated and not just wandering around either stealing or doing shitty jobs. At that political level, money becomes an abstract thing, and I think it becomes a matter of national interest, not individual interest. Try to think about absolute wealth, not relative wealth. If the koch brothers can have 100 villas, would they be able to have so many without a redistribution system ? I don't think they would. Look at developing or third world countries, and look at their wealthiest, I'm sure they don't even have proper health care.