131–140 of 552 posts
As a practical point, you won't get economic equity before political equity and them that have the political equity have no reason to redistribute it fairly.
I think that part of the reason why the threat of war is much lower now than it was in the past is because patriotism is at an all time low.
Another problem is that this already exists in the form of the US dollar. The better America does economically, the more the US dollar will be worth relative to other currencies. Maybe if the Fed stopped manipulating the money supply, people would actually be able to see the value of the USD increase predictably when the economy does well.
I totally agree with attempts to redistribute USD to its citizens to even things out.
Nonetheless, I think that cryptocurrencies will solve the problem of inequality without the need for government intervention.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
>do what nobody has the balls to do: tax wealth Just to clarify, nobody in the US is doing this, but it's not unheard of elsewhere. For example, Norway has a wealth tax of about 0.85% and there are some other examples at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wealth_tax#Current_examples .
The drawback of taxing wealth is that it distorts markets, it discourages saving. EDIT: Can't comment ("You're posting too fast, blah blah blah"). Here are some replies to the comments bellow: > It's encouraging people to make their money be productive instead of stashing it under a mattress. When you have money in the bank, you're effectively lending most of it to other people. Your money is "productive", which is e…
If you can build wealth around being active rather than just reaping the benefit of interest of interests then that should be encouraged rather than just grabbing and keeping.
If you support UBI, why wouldn't you support reducing the age requirement on social security to 18+? Social security already exists, we don't need to re-invent the wheel. Obviously we'd need to change the eligibility requirements so that you didn't need to pay in. Now we just need a story about where the money will come from to finance it for the long-haul.
I have a better (may be slightly insane) idea. Open up startup investing (VC rounds especially) to a wider audience through some kind of index fund. Retirement and pension funds, endowments etc are too roundabout a way of actually benefitting from the windfall in the now. While this is obviously risky, in the 2/10 chance where the startup IPOs or gets acquired, everyone stands to benefit a big deal. I recently heard…
This is what ICOs have recently enabled. It's not insane, in fact it's already happening. VC investing has traditionally been a good ol' boy club, but I think that will change. Openings up investing to everyone will provide more people with an opportunity to prosper.
> I think that every adult US citizen should get an annual share of the US GDP.
Sure thing, sama. I hope you saw it[1]: https://medium.com/@simon.sarris/after-universal-basic-incom...
Without addressing these issues, UBI could look like a nightmare even if we're all on board.
I think he's committing the usual assumptions:
1. That what people struggling and suffering in the US need is money, and not some other thing that they've also lost, that may be more important.
> imagine a world in which every American would have their basic needs guaranteed
2. That those struggling would be content if they had the $ part figured out.
3. That such disbursements would ultimately lead to less inequality, and not more.
etc
Just as you can find Silicon Valley techies who think Soylent is the only sustenance a person will need, intellectuals tend to think everyone could be as content as they would be living life in their heads or inventing their own destiny. Most people need to be doing something to feel satisfied and UBI addresses this just as poorly as disability checks. Cue drug epidemics.
> And we should consider eventually replacing some of our current aid programs, which distort incentives and are needlessly complicated and inefficient, with something like this.
Tread very carefully, Sam. As I mention in the anti-UBI article, thinking you can replace case workers who do very real, inefficient, difficult tasks like getting medicaid patients to just sign up and show up at a doctor at all is not easy. You will not eliminate poverty just by giving everyone money, especially if you do it by eliminating the pesky overhead of case workers at the same time. UBI looks great because its easy to explain, but we probably need a basket of hodge podge solutions to meet the needs of the poor. The poor and their needs, I promise you, are much more diverse than the Silicon Valley rich and theirs. Be very careful not to think the poor think precisely like you, just minus money. E.g. what works for a top 1% IQ engineer who lost his job will not work for a senior citizen drug addict who has had trouble holding a conversation with another human for the last 5 years due to his isolation.
[1] Because dang messaged me about it being re-upped on HN so I assume somebody at YC eyeballed it.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Did you build Microsoft? Yes. I purchased several of their products, thereby increasing the capitalization of Microsoft. I expect you intended the answer to be "No," implying that Bill Gates (and a few others) built Microsoft. However, that rests on a specific understanding of ownership and causality that not everyone shares.
Would Bill Gates have worked so hard (presumably) if he didn't have that specific understanding of ownership and casuality? Isn't that type of motivation and incentive necessary, to grind through the obstacles?
At first it was good. More opportunities for the little men, yay!
Second generation was like: why do I have to work this complicated job? Strive? Mathematicians live no better than janitors. Overcrowded not-so good resorts with bad attitude (remember, no one have incentive to be polite, servicing others, since there is little money to get from eath individual customer. Almost everyone have same wealth)
Third generation is almost total stagnation. Everyone is just sitting in queue of some sort, waiting for hand-out from the almighty government.
Sometimes for years.
Production is forgotten, redistribution rules the world.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
This is what ICOs have recently enabled. It's not insane, in fact it's already happening. VC investing has traditionally been a good ol' boy club, but I think that will change. Openings up investing to everyone will provide more people with an opportunity to prosper.
ICOs still feel like the wild west. They feel way more riskier than contributing to a "validated" funding round. That said, VC rounds obviously are no guarantee of good judgement either.