201–210 of 235 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
>and software is not. Linux and thus Android would like to have a word with you.
I'm fairly sure that there are more people capable of appreciating a song than even know what Linux is, let alone appreciate it. And i say this with an Ubuntu daily driver.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'm fairly sure that there are more people capable of appreciating a song than even know what Linux is, let alone appreciate it. And i say this with an Ubuntu daily driver.
Don’t know but very inexpensive and ubiquitous communication for everyone on the planet is right up there with the newest Justin Bieber hit imho.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You have enough to support 6 people, but, because you donate enough to support 0.6 to a beneficiary of your choice, a revolution would be required if you only had enough to support 3? Where do you want the money for UBI come from, or do you just not want it full stop?
>have enough to support 6 people Because he chooses to trade his time and effort for it.
And if a lot of people felt like I did, society wouldn't be producing enough for me to actually live on the UBI, ...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
If the government takes half of what I make it would probably be time for a revolution. I make a good living, but having half of what I make support 3 other people that are not my family and just giving them cash. Like being on the afternoon of Wednesday and realizing that all the work I did in the week so far was taken away to give to someone else without my input is insane. And I give over 10 percent of what I earn…
The government already takes about third-ish if you’re a wage worker in the US. Is there something special about 50% in return for, say, UBI (for you a 12k tax rebate), and guaranteed heath insurance that is unpalatable? Like I get the pessimism of taxes just disappearing to the ether but this whole idea is predicated about everyone getting something of tangible value that equalizes around the median income. Like I a…
Whereas 50% at all income levels is going to be very frustrating to someone earning $35k/year in addition to their UBI.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I've never really looked too closely at the idea of UBI, although I like the concept. I always assumed that any money you earn would then be deducted from future payments. With completely arbitrary numbers, let's say UBI was 1000€/month and I earned 500€ in a particular month, then next month my UBI payment would be reduced by that amount. If I earned 1500€ my next UBI payment would be zero, but the excess 500€ would…
> I always assumed that any money you earn would then be deducted from future payments Contrary to what everyone says in this thread, this is the crappy way welfare exists in the UK
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Art and cultural heritage may have worth outside that represented by short-term supply and demand? Or it may not. We can't tell objectively, because there is no metric to measure. I suppose my point is, if you cannot tell that there is a benefit at all , why leap to the assumption that it's a large enough benefit to pay 25m euros for.
Because not of bread alone you shalt live. You can't get to the moon without moonshots. There is a queue of people willing to fund for-profit moonshots, but when it comes to art and other non-monetizable human endeavours, in practice there is only the State.
If anything, we need the ultra rich to fund this kind of thing based on their taste. That worked well in the past with the court musician/composer and patronage.
There are so many problems with this UBI idea. The medium is one that comes to mind. We have largely moved on from paint on canvas to video the way we moved on from sculpture in stone to paint on canvas.
Does the artist have the artistic freedom to start a youtube channel with the money? I would suspect not.
Most likely this goes to propping up outdated mediums of expression and will lack the complete freedom needed for a true artist to really express themselves.
Then of course you have to contend with those gaming the system to free roll by collecting old toilets from the trash to work on their homage to Duchamp masterpiece.
I suspect there is reason for the starving artist archetype.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Same in Iceland. We have something called "artist salary" where every year a handful of artists are selected to essentially be paid by the government to practice their craft. Opinions are however divided as there's always this debate about who is deemed worthy and who is not. This sounds very similar, but I think they'll have the same problem; who decides what art is worthy of being supported?
> who decides what art is worthy of being supported? If the number of entrants exceeds the number of allowances, they are randomly selected. It's written in the article.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Wrong, money velocity and demand (both probably go up under this scheme) can increase inflation. So can shortages caused by a big demand spike.
Demand for food and housing doesn't go up with UBI, there are still the same number of people.
America has very high marginal propensity to consume so most of this will be spent. An additional tax that redistributes primarily will also be spent much more because poor and middle class have higher MPC than rich.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> It's always nice seeing countries look to support their artists in building their cultural heritage. But, at the end of the day it's still worth close to nothing, right? I enjoy art and music as much as anyone else but the reason those professions are so poorly paid is because the supply outstrips the demand considerably[1]. What value is there in asking taxpayers to pay for an increase the supply when there's alre…
Not very many people believe that a market of individual capitalists responding to supply and demand creates the best outcomes. For example many people believe that state mandated healthcare creates better outcomes. For anyone willing to look beyond a simple model of supply and demand, a deep analysis of the effects is needed.
If we had a true healthcare free market starting from scratch right now the money would go into blood panel sampling and building massive data sets to use machine learning algorithms for classification.
If I had a full quarterly blood panel sample that went into a database in 5-10 years the most trivial random forest would crush my doctor as far as classification.
Pushing 50 my visits to the doctor are not going to look that much different than when I was a kid in 1980 for my entire life.
Instead, with this bullshit system my doctor doesn't even want to do a full panel once a year. The government is not going to pay for that.
Even better, imagine a $200 dollar home device to do a full blood sample once a month with a $20 subscription fee for analysis. 2-3 years from now would be incredible.
Just impossible to have happen with this wonderful healthcare system the collectivist love so much.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Don’t know but very inexpensive and ubiquitous communication for everyone on the planet is right up there with the newest Justin Bieber hit imho.
Yes, but people know about Justin Bieber. They can understand his latest hit, they can sing and dance to it. How many people know about Linux and what it enables?