Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Ireland rolls out basic income scheme for artists

reuters.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

691–700 of 736 posts

Re: Ireland rolls out basic income scheme for artists

#691

Post by miroljub »

danparsonson wrote: post #573
miroljub wrote: post #502

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> You'd need to be more specific - who/what is this huge group of people you're referring to? I already explained why I don't want to say it aloud in this context. Your guess is as good as anyone's. > ... as a society, we have decided not to talk about it so we are not called racists or far right.

I'm not interested in guessing what your opinion is, I'm hoping you'll share it. I don't think you'll be unfairly judged; of course if you are actually being racist then it's not unfair for anyone to call that out. I don't feel like 'society' has decided not to talk about certain things to avoid name calling; I've personally only heard that kind of phrase coming from someone who holds a racist opinion but doesn't lik…

I think we are at the point where we both know which groups are meant. I assume that you live in the USA, which has strong free speech and privacy laws, so you don't need to worry. The rest of us are not that lucky, so the best we can get away with is hinting and hoping no one takes close attention.

Re: Ireland rolls out basic income scheme for artists

#692

Post by b112 »

komali2 wrote: post #474
b112 wrote: post #396

Earlier quoted context omitted.

All form of welfare should keep a person alive, but never comfortable. Living in a one room dwelling, with a shared bathroom is unpleasant, but safe, warm, and has a bed. Having enough for basic food, but no luxuries. My point is, welfare(not disability, welfare) should sustain. Keep safe. Alive. Free from elements. But absolutely be something a normal person wants to escape from. And there will always be those happy…

> All form of welfare should keep a person alive, but never comfortable. Why? We are well beyond the scarcity that would require this.

What on earth are you even talking about?

The person in my description would be housed, fed, safe. To this you say, we're well beyond the scarcity that would require this.

Believe it or not, people still work to produce almost everything. While aided with machinery, farmers are human beings and work. People actually physically build houses. Everything that you own, is assembled or manufactured from components and parts that come from human labour.

If someone is going to live off the backs of the work, and effort of other human beings, then certainly they should not live in luxury. They should, in fact, feel as if they are putting other people out, which in fact they are.

I've already expressed a situation where I want nobody to starve. Where I want nobody to not have a roof over their head, if they're having a difficult time, where I want them to be safe.

This is an extremely generous, extremely kind, extremely compassionate thing for me, or anyone else to do. To give some of my daily effort to help others, is laudable.

To this you say, why don't you give more? To this you say, it's not enough to be housed, but why doesn't somebody get a free large screen TV too? To this you say, why doesn't somebody get more than just the basic necessities? Can't they have steak, a large home, all, provided by the efforts of others?

Do you not realize how completely selfish that is? It's completely out of touch with the whole dynamic of people working to produce goods, and other people just getting those goods without effort.

Re: Ireland rolls out basic income scheme for artists

#693

Post by 9rx »

snayan wrote: post #680
9rx wrote: post #661

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"Built in 1954" doesn't sound like new construction. Of course you can buy used houses at a fraction of the cost. That's nothing new. Maybe you missed it, but the discussion here about building new to make homes more affordable.

It's not like the newly built homes are typically the most affordable. It causes a ripple effect as those that can afford it upgrade their housing. https://research.upjohn.org/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1314...

It is not like I'm homeless. I would be the one upgrading. Except I don't see how the numbers make sense.

You're right: The cost of new construction anchors the used market. Used housing is so expensive because new housing is even more expensive. If new houses were cheaper I, like many others, would have already have built one and my current home would be up for grabs at a lower price than I'd expect in the current reality. However, that's repeating what was already said.

Re: Ireland rolls out basic income scheme for artists

#694

Post by tokai »

_heimdall wrote: post #578
tokai wrote: post #563

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Basic income is not Marxism. Marxism is against basic income. Getting a basic income is almost the opposite to getting the actual value of your labor. I write this as someone against Marxism. You should read up on things, and not just let your biases dictate how you understand things.

Basic income is very much a step towards Marxism. Its solidly in the vein of moving from what one earns to what one needs. It empowers the state to decide what we need and to allocate those resources. And personally I see no way the government could control such a program without eventually taking direct control over means of production. I'm also not sure why you assume I haven't read up on this topic. We may disagre…

I assume that you haven't read up because the modern concept of universal basic income was made by Friedman. You are so far off the mark laying it at the feet of marxism that I was actually holding back and treating you with more respect than you deserve when showing such an extreme lack of awareness of the concepts you are discussing.

I get you don't like marxism. But you come off like a parody when you have such shallow grasp on what it is. Most real life communist countries, it is a crime to be without work. As far as you can come from a basic income.

Re: Ireland rolls out basic income scheme for artists

#695

Post by komali2 »

b112 wrote: post #692
komali2 wrote: post #474

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> All form of welfare should keep a person alive, but never comfortable. Why? We are well beyond the scarcity that would require this.

What on earth are you even talking about? The person in my description would be housed, fed, safe. To this you say, we're well beyond the scarcity that would require this. Believe it or not, people still work to produce almost everything. While aided with machinery, farmers are human beings and work. People actually physically build houses. Everything that you own, is assembled or manufactured from components and par…

> Do you not realize how completely selfish that is? It's completely out of touch with the whole dynamic of people working to produce goods, and other people just getting those goods without effort.

The vast majority of our wealth is already stolen by megalomaniacs so they can buy big useless yachts. I'd give up twice as much if it meant the local crackhead got not just a house, but a PS5. At least the crackhead is funny, and when my dog got his head stuck in my fence, the crackhead got him out.

You specifically said you didn't want them to be comfortable... Which means you wish suffering upon someone you don't know. Just because you think it's unfair that you work and they don't? Why focus on the downtrodden then, rather than the generationally wealthy vultures?

Re: Ireland rolls out basic income scheme for artists

#696

Post by EQmWgw87pw »

lucideer wrote: post #523
EQmWgw87pw wrote: post #507

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You’re making a logical leap, how can you say only money has value when things are worth money? That item has value equivalent to the money given for it, therefore that item has value. It’s likely you’d be able to find people who are willing to trade some electronic device you have for another equivalent one (some iPhone for some Android) without exchanging any money. Money is just the measure of value, it’s like say…

> That item has value equivalent to the money given for it, therefore that item has value. > Money is just the measure of value Money is the measure of market value. If you believe it's the measure if inherent value, you believe anything outside of the market has no value. E.g. that human lives have no value outside of waged labour (or heck, even slavery). The point here is the monetary value is a model of value, not…

What’s another way you can measure or define value? What would you say is the non-monetary value of non-buyable things?

Re: Ireland rolls out basic income scheme for artists

#697

Post by EQmWgw87pw »

monknomo wrote: post #587
EQmWgw87pw wrote: post #500

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Corporations produce things (productive), while UBI rewards unproductive behavior (theoretically)

people working for corporations produce things, I think you'll find the incorporating docs, and the property owned do not produce things by themselves.

But that’s the point. UBI allows people to not work for a corporation while also costing money that came from somewhere. Generally when there are corporate docs and owned property, those are the things required before production starts. What you’re saying doesn’t really affect the point.

Re: Ireland rolls out basic income scheme for artists

#698

Post by EQmWgw87pw »

someone7x wrote: post #560
EQmWgw87pw wrote: post #500

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Corporations produce things (productive), while UBI rewards unproductive behavior (theoretically)

What a stunningly myopic conclusion. I hope one day you are able to acknowledge all the people in this world that live for purpose instead of for making Lumberg’s stock go up half a point.

I’m not really sure what having a purpose has to do with it. Whatever your purpose is, it is sustained by corporations and other people working for them, unless you are farming your own food and building your own house.

Re: Ireland rolls out basic income scheme for artists

#699

Post by komali2 »

ryanjshaw wrote: post #612
komali2 wrote: post #599

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> How does the government solve this problem? The same way it solves all problems: poorly, yet better and more fairly than corporations do. > Why can’t a private organization replicate that? Private organizations are driven by profit motive. Profit motive is usually in a negative correlation with fair results in these sorts of situations. If you mean a church or non profit, then, because those don't represent a regio…

I didn’t really follow your argument about non-profits. Clearly the artists somehow managed to convince government to support the scheme, why can’t the same people form a non—profit and convince ordinary members of the public to support the same scheme in a non-profit structure? That way we have a smaller government, lower taxes, and the people who care can directly spend their money on addressing this problem - rath…

> I didn’t really follow your argument about non-profits.

I assumed that was an angle people were going for: charities and non profits rather than governments.

I'm not convinced the artist fund happened because artists were good lobbyists with transferrable sales skills, just socket in either Big Government, Big Church, or Big Nonprofit and they'll happily churn away art. Seems it's more a government initiative, sourced by the public out of a desire for more art, or to live in a society where artists can focus on making arts.

Personally I thought the whole point of improving automation and increasing productivity was so that we could all just hang out and paint or make music or whatever.

> That way we have a smaller government, lower taxes, and the people who care can directly spend their money on addressing this problem - rather than have their money going to taxes where it might be spent somewhere they don’t agree with!

It doesn't make sense to only privatize art, then, because all things that taxes are spent on are things some people don't care about. What you're arguing for is a total privatization of everything, and functionally the elimination of government (since some people won't want their taxes to go to, for example, the police or military or even the president's burger budget). So, an anarcho-capitalist argument.

Some people would be very happy in that world. Most wouldn't.

If you specifically want to single out art and ok with, idk, roads and fire departments being funded by taxes, then that just means you disagree with your neighbor about the kind of society you want to live in, since the only way to build a society based on your values in a liberal democracy is through government - private markets are concerned only with profitability, which is often negatively correlated with having a fair and comfortable society.

Re: Ireland rolls out basic income scheme for artists

#700

Post by komali2 »

philipallstar wrote: post #629
jimnotgym wrote: post #621

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Because they would all refuse, presumably? Like they would refuse to fix the road, because that would benefit everyone not just their greedy selves.

Yes, local roads are usually taken care of by local taxes. Why would Manhattan's road improvements be paid for by rural Virginians?

That's just an arbitrary separation. Both places benefit from the federal highway system that allows goods to be delivered across State lines. Both benefit from the maintenance of shipping lanes, the national power grid, the submarine cables connecting them to Europe and Asia, the...

This is why hyper privatization will fail: it's impossible to separate out all the intricately intertwined systems in such a way that people are throwing pennies in a million directions to pay exactly enough to each stakeholder involved in the functioning of their society.

Post reply on HN