|
|
|
|
|
|
by angersock
3742 days ago
|
|
|
Even a cursory reading of the story should suggest to a reader a difference between the proposed action (divide equally riches amongst all), and UBI (fund a fixed-amount per citizen per annum). Least of all, if one believes in the ability of capital to be reinvested to create more capital, it is obvious that the second case need hardly injure an economy while still helping the people who are broke. The former case, of continual wealth division, of course may fail--luckily, that's not how UBI works. |
|
|
I think an even stronger statement holds true: if you don't actively redistribute then you're effectively making an open-loop amplifier which will amplify noise (who happened to be in the right place at the right time) in preference to signal (effort input) -- which is just as harmful to the cultivation of a beneficial incentive landscape (i.e. one that promotes effort input, since that's tautologically all anyone ever gets to decide) as a failure to reward success would be.
Alternatively: it's often better to reduce the transition-state energy than to improve the final reward, which is exactly the opposite of what happens when decisions are made by people who have 1 metric shitton of money to invest in building a moat with the aim of returning 2 metric shittons of money.