[ethbr1]

Anyone who thinks wealthy people willing part with any amount of wealth en masse hasn't studied history.

One of the reason democracy has tended to be a stable form of government is that it naturally finds a balance between the haves and the have nots -- the boundary where the haves are comfortable parting with that much to live in a stable society where they keep the remainder, and the have nots are afforded some amount of social services for their most accute needs.

That's all predicated on a "or riots / internal military action" alternative though.

We've lived through a pretty stable post-WWII economic bargain period, and historically there's not a ton of certainty that continues through distributive renegotiations, which tend to be bloody.

[UltraSane]

If AI makes GDP per hour of labor 2 times higher than that makes it very easy to provide UBI.

[ethbr1]

UBI is an allocation question, not a total question.

If GDP 2x's and labor becomes less scarce (and therefore less powerful), it's as possible that all those gains go to capital as anything else.

[UltraSane]

It is both, because people fight over allocation a LOT less if there is more to go around.

[ethbr1]

And yet current state ~5-13% of Americans are food insecure, despite GDP being large enough to support sufficient food for all.

In aggregate, capital is not particularly humane, left to its own devices.