hickhelperinhackney t1_ixjsspu wrote
I should like to see policies based on evidence such as this rather than who is judged to be‘deserving’ of something above abject poverty
stealth_elephant t1_ixka4nk wrote
Everyone is deserving of something above abject poverty.
hickhelperinhackney t1_ixkg7zt wrote
I quite agree. Our world has the resources. And who decides what is ‘deserving’ labor?
incomprehensibilitys t1_ixkcixd wrote
Not if they can work but decide not to.
I support helping those who cannot support themselves, not those who decide that they can make more money off of the governmental support
couchfucker2 t1_ixkoqg5 wrote
Ya know an interesting thing happens when humans “decide not to work.” They tend to find work for themselves from their inherent passions. They create art, dance, become streamers, ect. It’s our instinct to do that, and it creates a richer more cultural society when people decide to do that. There’s easily enough money that was stolen from the workers share of economic growth to fund this kind of support, it’s nothing to the billionaire class. We did something like this in the US in the form of WPA and the National endowment for the arts and public broadcasting.
Strazdas1 t1_ixlfwii wrote
yeah, thats how its "supposed to be". But in reality there are a lot of people who just sit at home and watch TV. Btw i support a full UBI and i think those people who choose not to do anything arent an issue.
incomprehensibilitys t1_ixmikuu wrote
If what you were saying about UBI is true, why aren't half of the 200 countries around the world doing it?
Many many trillions in the United States have flowed from the government and aid organizations to people over the last century or more. Social security, welfare, grants governmental aid for a variety of things,. Where is the evidence that these recipients create art and dance and a richer more cultural society? The evidence should be overwhelming.
And why aren't people who are working considered able to create these things you are saying? Are they stupid? A lot of these people open businesses and take karate and dream paint and travel and open social media and share photography and other things.
What money was stolen from people? Are you talking about what we did to Native Americans and enslaved people? We all know the great harm that was done to others. But where is all this easy money? We already owe tens of trillions to Medicare and Social Security. As well as tens of trillions in governmental borrowing. About 30 to 40% of government spending has to be borrowed. We don't have two nickels to rub together that are actually not borrowed.
For people who are talking about giving away other people's money, what have they done? Have you given back your home to a native person because it was stolen land? Have you made reparations to enslaved people's descendants with your own money? I am working on a multi-year project to try to return tens of thousands of acres of ancestral land back to Native Americans who are now hundreds to thousands of miles away from their ancestral land. It may fail, but it is worth trying
These are woke assertions, not proven reality.
camisado84 t1_ixljs14 wrote
I agree with a lot of what you're saying. Can you explain how you feel that even a massive redistribution of wealth would make meaningful changes (and lasting) in everyone's lives from those who have their finances predominantly leveraged? I say it like this, because most rich people aren't exactly hoarding gems and tying up their resources in fictional valuations (a small portion does, of course). Mostly those resources are tied back into the means of production.
Even if you take Musk's fortune at 200bn and redistribute it to every US citizen, that is ~600 bucks a person, one time. But that would require liquidating his leveraged portfolio which is nearly all in a small number of companies, which generate jobs and thus opportunities for individuals who otherwise may not have. Sure, that would free a very tiny amount of resources up for people to do something with, hopefully some of it very handy. But how do you quantify that to justify the execution of such a plan? (e.g. pilot programs that show it would be a net good for everyone)
While those individuals would no doubt spend it in the economy, how do you theorize this creates a net positive long term meaningful impact?
Strazdas1 t1_ixlfulh wrote
I wouldnt because this does not establish causation, when we already have established causation for this reduction via the ban of leaded gasoline.
Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments