←back to thread

Are we the baddies?

(geohot.github.io)
692 points AndrewSwift | 1 comments | 06 Jul 25 05:36 UTC | HN request time: 0.211s | source
Show context
hardwaresofton ◴[06 Jul 25 07:54 UTC] No.44478703[source]▶
> If you open a government S&P 500 account for everyone with $1,000 at birth that’ll pay their social security cause it like…goes up…wait who’s creating this value again?

This is a good point. Some VCs were major proponents of this (and tons of other business people I'm sure), but this is of course just a guaranteed inflow into the largest companies and the companies that think they will be large some day. Yet another way to reallocate public cash to private companies.

Another similar example is UBI -- its proof of an economy that is not dynamic. It's a tacit approval and recognition of the fact that "no, you probably won't be able to find a job with dignity that can support you and your family, so the government will pay to make you comfortable while you exist".

replies(4): >>44478725 #>>44478933 #>>44481973 #>>44485796 #
tossandthrow ◴[06 Jul 25 08:41 UTC] No.44478933[source]▶
> make you comfortable while you exist

I don't think there are many proponents of that type of ubi.

The way, at least I, see ubi is absolute subsistence - with a right to earn above that without affecting your subsistence.

IMHO something along UBI is needed for a democratized market economy - and I think the Scandinavian countries are the support for this claim.

replies(3): >>44479157 #>>44479230 #>>44479465 #
al_borland ◴[06 Jul 25 10:30 UTC] No.44479465[source]▶
If everyone gets an equal raise (whatever the UBI is), wouldn’t the entire market simply adjust to price that in, leaving everyone in the same relative position?
replies(9): >>44479526 #>>44479582 #>>44479597 #>>44479605 #>>44479793 #>>44480381 #>>44485167 #>>44494847 #>>44505740 #
1. Eisenstein ◴[06 Jul 25 10:57 UTC] No.44479597[source]▶
No, because the money isn't being printed, it is being reallocated from whatever it would have been spent on either by the people we tax to get it, or by the government who would have spent it on other things. Proponents contend that the economy is better off when people have a baseline income so that they can invest their time in productive things which may be beneficial, like going to school, having more time to raise their children, or starting a business, or volunteering, whatever, without worrying about how they are going to feed themselves. This would be opposed to whatever tax breaks we would be giving that would end up in a trust, foundation, or a VC fund, or whatever the government would have spent it on.

Note, I have no position on whether or not it would work in this way, but that is my understanding of the position of the those in favor of it.