Universal Basic Income is Capitalism 2.0

Using UBI as a band aid on the societal wounds caused by Capitalism, is in my opinion, ignoring a bigger issue. That's not to say UBI isn't a good idea, though.

We're in the midst of an ecological catastrophe, where our very existence as a species is at risk. We're driving towards a cliff edge and the discussion here largely focuses on a strategy to get more fuel in the car. We need to change our fuel, rethink our metrics of progress and change our course.

> Even the most hardcore anti-capitalists have to give respect to how the combination of capitalism and technology has worked to lift most of the world out poverty and provided us with the security and comfort only kings enjoyed just a few century’s ago.

The article starts with a fallacy.. It should be: only technology has improved our lives, not capitalism. And there are still insane amounts of people suffering and living in poverty because they do not have access to even the most basic resources, let alone the latest technology.

In fact "the combination of capitalism and technology" has opened the door to horrific new ways to suppress and exterminate people.

Primarily anecdotal, but my experience (as a Dane married to an American) is that Americans are more likely to both give to charitable organizations and volunteer their time, whereas Danes are less likely to do so. Seems to be slightly backed up by this article (at least the volunteering part): https://www.theguardian.com/news/datablog/2010/sep/08/charit...

Also, I will add that when people on cash assistance in Denmark (kontanthjælp) do stupid things like spend all their money on alcohol, the general response seems not to be an offer of support but a "pull yourself together, you've got the means to do so". It definitely might just be the the circle I'm in, but thought I'd offer up my experience.

I think point 3 will be a real problem with UBI.

I love the intent behind UBI, but second-order consequences seem seldom to be considered.

For example:

If we give everyone $X, where is the money going to come from? Taxes from people making > $X dollars. But, how would those people have utilized that money, if they _weren't_ taxed? Perhaps in ways much better than its utilization for UBI, which leads to a net loss on balance for most.

If we give everyone $X, what is that going to do to low-income work? Say a person, previously could only get a job _making_ $X / month. Their incentive to work is now diminished. We may _think_ that they will will be spend time learning / etc, but this is an ideal, not reality. The person would most likely _choose_ not to work. This would deprive both them and society of the value they would have produced

---

> The first core component of capitalism is the understanding that when everyone performs the work they are best at, then trades with each other, everyone wins.

^ This is not quite true. Capitalism works through evolution: It simply rewards people for doing work that _other people want_, not necessarily work they are best at.

When you look at capitalism through the lens of: this is an opaque, higher-order process that allocates capital through evolution, you end up wanting to change some if it's core components less.

The AOW is only one of two pillars in the Dutch pension system. The other one is a mandatory investment scheme.

The AOW is a baseline, to keep you from being homeless or starving to death or having to beg for money.

For your last question: there are also people who are content with whatever welfare they get now and don't even try to work to better their lives. Even though everyone could do this it seems almost no one does.