| >I would generally agree that the humanitarian value of a person's life vs the economic value of a person's life are separate concepts, but they are intrinsically related by the fact that in our current system of resource distribution, e.g. capitalistic economy, the humanitarian-value is intrinsically associated with the economic-value. >In my ideal system, this would not be the case, or that association would at least be loosened. I believe we can make some progress towards this ideal in the ‘real world’ through the existence of ‘force multipliers’: Food and housing production have skyrocketed since industrialization. There are similar effects in terms of housing and infrastructure (water, sewer, etc) for a population. I think it is very possible for us, with our current level of industrial output as a species, to feed/clothe/house/whatever the population of the planet. Unfortunately that ideal fails when it meets with the reality that is the fact that no matter what sort of economic system you are under, whether free market capitalism, Communist, Anarchism, Feudalism, etc... There are limited resources and efficient ways to allocate them. Those costs you want to disassociate from the individuals responsibility still need to be paid, and just like with everything where those who receive the benefit do not have to pay a proportional share of the cost, those costs will increase because people will use and use and use because they get all of the benefit and none of the cost. If you'd like a clear cut example close to home you need only look at the U.S. Mint[1] [1] https://www.businessinsider.com/us-mint-ends-the-dollar-coin... >In summary, >1. I believe our current technological and industrial capacity would support a UBI-like system for everyone, right now >2. I do not believe that it it would be sustainable to do so with unchecked population growth >3. I do not know what the best real-world avenue to prevent outgrowing the capacities of such a UBI-like system would be, but suspect there are tools we have now (education) that we could explore that may help. >4. The fact that such a UBI-like system would be difficult to impossible in our current economy is not an indictment of the concept of UBI, but of our current system of resource distribution. There's a lot here so let's go over point by point: >1. I believe our current technological and industrial capacity would support a UBI-like system for everyone, right now No doubt about that, but the same statement could be said of any point of history. The question isn't whether such a system could be supported, its whether the cost of such a system is sustainable. I'm in no way disputing that the US (and every other government on earth) could provide a UBI of 1 cent per month to everyone. The question here is, is the cost of such a system going to be more, or less than our currently unsustainable system? [2] [2] https://www.ssa.gov/policy/docs/ssb/v70n3/v70n3p111.html If the cost of that is more, because the benefits provided are greater than what they currently already are, then clearly it is not sustainable without increasing taxes, which in turn reduces income and wealth across the board. No doubt you will argue that tax increases are sustainable and a good way to redistribute wealth from the other team to your team, as you have in previous comments, however such a position has the following problems: 1 - Taxes in general have an effect of reducing wealth creation and income creation. This is because people are no longer able to allocate that money in the most efficient possible way to maximize their own individual wealth, resulting in less wealth overall. 2 - Non-Flat taxes, or taxes that are intended to punish/rewards to specific things are necessarily causing specific distortions in the market, which in turn causes even more inefficiencies in wealth creation. Furthermore they are extremely susceptible to being taken over for political reasons, in order to reward/punish supporters/opponents and to subsidize specific politicians pet projects, which in turn brings about additional costs and inefficiencies to the economy in general. 3 - Given that these tax increases are explicitly going to support and sustain groups that are unproductive, these negative effects are magnified because the expected return on these taxes is less than the return from say a new bridge or road. In other words, this is the economic equivalent of taking someones worm fishing bait, and giving it to someone else so they can eat it. Had you just not done anything, there would be a fish in someones hands, rather than a worm in someone stomach. >2. I do not believe that it it would be sustainable to do so with unchecked population growth Why not? Because there would be an increasing amount of unproductive people versus productive people sustaining them? What dynamic changes here? >3. I do not know what the best real-world avenue to prevent outgrowing the capacities of such a UBI-like system would be, but suspect there are tools we have now (education) that we could explore that may help. If we have such tools, why have we not used them against the continued and consistent expansion of welfare throughout the developed world in the past 100 years? Let me be clear here, the tools do not matter. The reason you cannot and will not be able to prevent the outgrowing of welfare systems is simply because the incentive structure in place encourages their continued growth until it is stopped due to unavoidable practical considerations. No politician will remain in office for long in a democracy by cutting welfare payments. And indeed why would they want to? Such payments look good in the newspapers, and can be used to reward supporters. The only time that those systems will be reduced is when the money to pay for it actually begins to run dry. That is why whenever social securities nest egg begins to run out, you see a whole heap of changes to reduce the benefits paid, and the doomsday is pushed back another couple of years, with the inherent issues involved. Such restructuring of the welfare system too also bring their own problems, and often result in outright seizures of hard working peoples private retirement plans [3], showing yet another moral hazard involved in the entire welfare system. [3] https://www.ipe.com/nightmare-in-hungary-as-government-natio... >4. The fact that such a UBI-like system would be difficult to impossible in our current economy is not an indictment of the concept of UBI, but of our current system of resource distribution. The problem if that it does not matter what the system of resource distribution is, when the incentive structure is such that it is filled with moral hazards and pernicious incentives. If you'll re-read my replies to the previous points, you'll note that they are applicable in every system, from free market capitalism to centrally planned communism. The incentives will define the results. [[continued in my next repply since this one is too long]] |