Hacker News Reader

Comment by mptest | Hacker News Reader

>A German experiment has found that people are likely to continue working full-time even if they receive no-strings-attached universal basic income payments.

Surprising only to those who have not read literally any other study on UBI. They all come to this conclusion.

The only reason we don't have nice things like this: universal housing, healthcare, income, food security, is because a handful of dragons sit on and hoard unfathomably sized mountains of gold and convince the uneducated and those ignorant of economics and politics that the real problem is average people getting what they deserve - A dignified life where their basic needs are met and they have the dignified freedom to pursue a fulfilling life rather than spend it enriching aforementioned dragons for exploitative wages.

View on HN

This was exactly my reaction.

It says a lot about how much the ideology that "rich people deserving, poor people are lazy" has affected people's attitudes.

Capital and ideology by pikkety goes in to great detail in to how consent for gilded age wealth inequality is and has been manufactured. Most effectively, unsurprisingly, in the minds of... people like those replying derisively to my comment and this thread in general.

I greatly enjoy your casting of the existential struggle into fantasy role-playing terms. This is a relatively fresh treatment that is worth celebrating for its own sake.

In this context, what seems missing is the Ecclesiastes realization that 'fulfilling' (for some) is always going to mean becoming a dragon.

That is, the purported us/them separation between 'we' and 'dragons' is a mirage--there is only the full spectrum or humanity in view.

One example of a dragon was Saddam Hussein, who characterized oppression of the marsh Arabs as "being firm".

So it goes. One possible exit from the cycle is the realization the 'fulfilling' is not necessarily measured in materialistic units.

>I greatly enjoy your...fantasy role-playing terms

It's not that, dragons hoarding mountains of gold has always historically been an allegory for the rich hoarding wealth.

>'fulfilling' (for some) is always going to mean becoming a dragon.

Luckily we have anti dragon tools, like progressive taxation, wealth taxes, and robust social programs to prevent the dragons from sitting on too much gold.

>One example of a dragon was Saddam Hussein, who characterized oppression of the marsh Arabs as "being firm". So it goes. One possible exit from the cycle is the realization the 'fulfilling' is not necessarily measured in materialistic units.

Yeah, the fulfillment is the downstream byproduct of not having to worry about the difficulty of meeting daily material needs, not the justification for the policy itself.

> Luckily we have anti dragon tools, like progressive taxation, wealth taxes, and robust social programs to prevent the dragons from sitting on too much gold.

1. If you think that a Bezos, or a Buffet, or a Musk, is paying a "fair" amount, then fine. Your faith in mortal systems stands rewarded.

2. This is less a question of basic needs--look at how fat and unhealthy so many are today--and perhaps more a question of envy. Do I really think that joy is a function of loot? Is more stuff the answer to our existential questions?

Sorry, I guess I should've been clearer and added Properly implemented anti dragon tools. I assumed that was self evident. I suspect it is, given you clearly are capable of recognizing the problematic dragons I allude to.

>2.

No, it's definitely a question of basic needs. I exclusively mentioned income, healthcare, housing, food security as the policy objectives, and not cheap consumable goods/treats. There's a wealth of evidence that a society that provides guarantees around those basic needs has way fewer issues downstream. For a start, look to the healthcare outcomes in countries that have universal healthcare vs the US.

An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure, as they say.

> There's a wealth of evidence that a society that provides guarantees around those basic needs

I'm totally in agreement, in the abstract. It would take a sick mind to enjoy observing poverty/starvation.

The details of how a sustainable economy that affords all the opportunity to thrive is provided is still non-trivial.

The Five Year Plans of the Soviet Union, to drop a specific example, were full of great ideas, but the society was corrupt and everyone lied about the reality, until the lies collapsed at the three-quarter-century mark.

Do you believe the economy is a zero sum game?

I believe the mountains of evidence that money in a 'poor' person's hands does more for the economy than when it is added to a dragon's pile.

Taxing the workers and giving the money to the 'poor' is an indirect subsidy to the dragons. Dragons are rich and cunning enough to afford to 'plan' their taxes, so it's not like they need to contribute to the UBI. They just reap the benefits.

The German UBI experiment we're discussing didn't involve 'taxing workers to give to the poor' - it gave unconditional payments to people across economic backgrounds, most of whom continued working.

Your assertion about tax planning misses that proper UBI implementation would include tax reform to ensure the wealthy can't avoid contributing. If anything it demonstrates your clear understanding of whom would actually be taxed to achieve the funding for such social programs. The dragons.

More importantly, the data shows UBI recipients spent money locally on necessities and small businesses, not funneling it to large corporations. The 'indirect subsidy' theory contradicts spending patterns observed in UBI trials.

Well, all I can say that if I was a major shareholder of Volkswagen I'd be 100% in support of UBI and made sure everyone can afford a new car, not just a used one.

Yeah, almost like a rising tide lifts all ships. Almost like the wealth hoarding dragons are fundamentally anti social.

If only there was a metaphor to explain that. Maybe something about a mythical creature, hoarding piles of treasure.

It's a poor analogy. Dragons take the gold from the people and kept it from them so it can't be used.

The 200 billion that Bezos is assumed to be "worth" is currently in the hands of the people, being used by us. If we wanted to fix society instead of buying amazon shares we could do it today. Bezos hasn't "hoarded" it, we have it.

"To the dismay of Thorin, Smaug the horrible turned out to sit on a pile of paper that anyone could buy if they wanted to and all the gold was already in circulation in the town of Bree."

If the taxes are landing just on "the workers" then that sounds like a poorly designed tax system, not a problem with UBI. Replace UBI with anything (roads, defense, welfare) and it is the same problem.

No, but that does not undermine the case for UBI.

I believe extreme wealth inequality is bad for economies and society.

Not the economy as a whole, but there are some aspects of the economy that are. Indeed, negative externalities can be worse than a zero-sum game to those affected.

To be frank, this whole “the economy is not a zero-sum game” argument is kind of a meme at this point.

>The only reason we don't have nice things like this: universal housing, healthcare, income, food security, is because a handful of dragons sit on and hoard unfathomably sized mountains of gold

This is simply not true. Barring pathologies like dictatorships, Billionaires ("Dragons") are generally not hoarding anything that affects anyone. Their fortunes are not "mountains of gold", but an estimate of how much value they could theoretically get from the rest of society if they sold their company.

It's not money that is "kept away" from the rest of us, in any way at all. We already have it. And if we don't, neither does the Dragon.

A wealthy society will create more billionaires ("Dragons") than a poor one, and a wealthy society also has more hospitals and food to share with the unfortunate than a poor society does.

Bezos, Gates etc are not hoarding hospitals, cheese or apartments. They cause more hospitals, cheese and apartments to exist since their companies employ people that need and can pay for all those things.

Even China has realized this by now. Hundreds of millions of people in China have had immense increase in standard of living the past few decades, while a few hundred billionaires have appeared.

Nobody has figured out how you get one without the other.

"Let us disown the kulaks. This has never been tried before."

Shocker, a retort against evidenced based advocacy for clearly beneficial social policy utilizing red scare propaganda within 10 minutes.

geez, tell us how you really feel

have you tried reddit?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com