pull down to refresh
100 sats \ 5 replies \ @k00b 14 Jun
Based on public education and healthcare in some countries, I suspect UBR performs better than UBI shortly after it's introduced having some memory imparted by the market it replaces and then ages like milk.
Maybe people will be uncompetitive with robots on every conceivable dimension, and even people will prefer the company of robots instead of people, but I doubt nation-scale UBI/UBR is a solution anyone would want unless robots somehow fix governments too.
reply
0 sats \ 4 replies \ @antic OP 14 Jun
you touch on a critical element of success: government shouldn't run UBR, it should just invest in it. Government already invests heavily in subsidies, but if it invested in technology advancements that make things cheaper, then eventually, the market could supply resources at a cheaper and cheaper rate until the resources can be paid for through S&P500 investment dividends.
reply
0 sats \ 3 replies \ @k00b 14 Jun
eh, that just moves the same exact problem upstream. maybe it has fewer problems upstream but it's effectively corporate ubi
reply
0 sats \ 2 replies \ @antic OP 14 Jun
ultimately the government doesn't have to do anything as technology is already doing this, but as people are impatient, rather than calling for the government to step in and provide cash, there's a more compelling argument for smart investments. Maybe that's the ultimate TL;DR.
reply
0 sats \ 1 reply \ @k00b 14 Jun
what does this mean? are investments dumb because no asked folks to make smart ones?
reply
0 sats \ 0 replies \ @antic OP 18h
Financial example: the US social security fund (about $3T) is in bonds, which fails to keep up with inflation and is heading toward insolvency. If that were in bitcoin, it would be hugely different, but if it were even in S&P500 or a whole stock market ETF, it would still be returning orders of magnitude higher returns and it wouldn't be insolvent. It would be cash positive and could be used to subsidize resources instead of giving dollars to recipients (or it could do both).
We could also fund energy as a primary target (building Nuclear, Fusion, Solar, whatever)--subsidize it all but give higher rates to the cheapest forms that have the biggest potential to return investment of higher energy yield per invested dollar (invest in the advancement of energy technology). In that way, we accelerate the price of all goods dropping to zero without having to explicity buy goods, build them, or hand-out fiat.
These are just methodology ideas. The core of my argument on UBI is that we should focus on making resources less expensive until they are free instead of trying to give away spending power, which should be an obvious losing proposition to anyone who has examined the basic market dynamics of free money.
reply on another page
0 sats \ 1 reply \ @SevenOfNine 14 Jun
Por que no los dos? Government starts mining Bitcoin. Partial distribution goes to fulfilling basic needs. Eventually, partial distribution can go towards UBI as well.
reply
0 sats \ 0 replies \ @antic OP 14 Jun
But if the distribution is cash, it has to come from selling the mined bitcoin, which means there’s a buyer on the other side providing the fiat. Or, if you mean they distribute sats, again, the end recipient has to spend that for resources that someone else provides—Increasing the amount of money people can spend without increasing the supply of goods on the other side, which leads to inflation. Even if people are spending sats on goods, what this would do is push against the natural deflation effect of technology. Why not simply make things free?
reply