CBDC is a another puzzle piece of a future dystopia. We're exchanging freedom for the sake of a security façade.
Would this result in more efficient spending of taxes in a corrupt economy? Not immediately. A lot of shitty people would get reach fast in the meantime, but the system would balance because people would no longer participate in the corruption directly as they used to.
Yes, you remove some freedom, but I am convinced that for societies that have a trust disconnection between the government and the people would be a net benefit (assuming democracy).
Additionally, comercial banks have been pretty shitty on providing liquidity to the real economy throughout the QE (at least in some parts of the west). They had their chance to not be a bottleneck, they missed it. Good riddance.
> I reckon we could fund universal basic income just from whitening the economy, in any given country.
I reckon that no economy, no matter how advanced, is so productive that you can provide a systemic incentive for everyone to not produce anything yet still be guaranteed to be supported. Will some work even when they don't have to? Sure. Will more people not work than before? Almost definitely. Will this effect compound over time and topple the system sooner rather than later? Guaranteed.
It is much more likely that the effect will fade over time, as people who are traumatized and exhausted from being forced to work terrible jobs for inhumane hours recover and once against find themselves ready to do something more active and productive.
You have to actually implement Universal Basic Income on a large scale, and keep it going for decades.
If you aren't willing to support doing that because "there isn't permanent, universal evidence", then you're creating a catch-22.
There is evidence that is robust and scientifically rigorous. That should be enough, at the very least, to say that we should be doing larger, more extended trials, and to at least plant a seed of doubt about this idea that humans are inherently lazy selfish slobs.
As for "real humans", I've talked to plenty. I know multiple who are constantly frustrated that they are not allowed to work productively, because of disabilities they have that make them inconvenient to employ (as with many disabilities and chronic illnesses, they have good days and bad days: they can work very well some of the time, but can't commit to a schedule that the company controls, because they can't even commit to a schedule that they consciously control).
I don't personally know a single person who, if given the chance, would choose to abandon work of all kinds forever.
The point isn't "glorifying work". It's that people don't actually want to be couch potatoes. They want enrichment. They want activity. They want meaningful stimulation.
Look at us more like zoo animals and maybe it'll make more sense: we know that giving tigers a pumpkin full of meat is more beneficial for their mental health than just dropping the same meat in front of them to eat with no effort. Humans aren't that different.
Even beyond that, though, humans want purpose. We want our lives to have some meaning, and it's pretty hard for most people to find that in sitting around doing nothing all day every day unless they have no other choice.
Perhaps it would also help to note that "work" isn't synonymous with "go to an office and file insurance claims for 8 hours" or anything like that. Writing is work. Acting is work. Making video games is work. Helping old people get around is work.
But the other thing is...if you would, if given the chance, just sit back and relax all day every day...then I hope that you get that chance! I believe that every person should have the opportunity to do what feels most fulfilling to them, and not just be required to work at specific kinds of jobs for specific types of schedules simply to be allowed to continue existing on this planet.
> Writing is work. Acting is work. Making video games is work. Helping old people get around is work.
All true, but keep in mind that value is created when work produces something that someone else wants to consume. Enrichment and meaningful stimulation to one may not produce anything useful to another, and in fact can often come from consumption. The alternative to being paid to be at a job you don't want to be at isn't sitting around doing nothing all day; it's being out there, enjoying themselves, living life, consuming products and services that others produced.
Would you rather clean toilets (providing what is desired by others, i.e. having a clean bathroom) for five hours or go do your favorite leisure activity, be it playing basketball, hiking, or spending time at a museum (consuming to fulfill your desire), for the same five hours, if you got the same universal basic income payment regardless of your choice?
Work is often hard and stressful. People have to deal with irate customers. People have to sweat and lift heavy things and have their bodies ache afterwards. People have to struggle and wrack their brains to solve a technical problem under a deadline. People have to do all sorts of things that they may not want to do in the immediate moment. Currently, the incentive for that is remuneration for time and labor performed. When you take that incentive away, who remains to do the work that is hard, isn't enjoyable, and may not be fulfilling?
What's that you say -- humans want their lives to having meaning, and this will somehow result in all of that stuff being done, anyway? All against the backdrop of a culture that is steadily moving away from one that values hard work in a moral sense? I'm skeptical.
To quote patio11: "The optimal amount of fraud is non-zero". The financial system needs slack, otherwise it destroys itself.
https://www.bitsaboutmoney.com/archive/optimal-amount-of-fra...
I haven't heard the term before, and thought maybe it had something to do with racial BS. (or maybe a teeth whitening campaign?)