[lev99]

If the United States wanted a fund the same size proportional to population of Norway's it would need 65 trillion dollars, which is about the same size as the total value of the top 60 stock exchanges in the world.

The NYT article made me think it was a good idea, but this comment inspired me to run the numbers myself. It's impossible to run a UBI with this type of system in the United States without total state ownership. Why would they publish something like this?

[hguant]

>Why would they publish something like this?

It's as if people in the world have agendas that allow them to handwave away things like facts.

In all seriousness, it's an op-ed, so the NYT hasn't subjected it to their standards of journalistic rigour, and it's written by a lawyer/blogger who works for a think tank called Demos. Maybe I'm biased from living in DC/the Beltway for so long, but in my head whenever I read 'works for a think tank,' I substitute 'professional liar'. The author is the very definition of someone pushing an agenda.

[lev99]

> The author is the very definition of someone pushing an agenda.

I understand people have reasons for writing appealing lies. I understand part of the job of a think tank is to write and publish their ideas.

I do not understand why The New York Times would publish a policy idea that is impossible. A critical thinking person can conclude that the investment fund model cannot be applied to The United States in a meaningful way. The New York Times is one of the most respected news papers in the world. In my mind, publishing this article has the effect of decreasing the paper's reputation among people that critical analyzed this policy proposal. This is damaging the The New York Times' greatest asset, the reputation of their brand.

I do not know a lot about newspapers generally, or The New York Times specifically. What I do know is this discourages me from investing more of my attention into The New York Times.