Andrew Yang's Basic Unconditional Income

Lounge
41

Hmm no, I think we’re on different tracks right now. I’m not referring to capitalism what I was referring to. I just think that in order to completely remove money from the equation, some kind of stepping stone should be used to pull culture towards this end. Everyone has the same 24 hours in a day, rich and poor people alike. And in that 24 hour period, people do different things: sleeping, caring (either for yourself, like eating, excercising, etc. or caring for family members or friends), entertainment and contributing to society. That being said, caring for family members and friends and for yourself could be seen as a form of contributing to society.

Imagine creating a distribution of the time spent on contributing to society. Then you would want people to spend as much time contributing to society. So a small number of people contribute 0% to society, a large number of people contribute 80% of their available time to society and again a small number contribute 100% of their available time to society.

Then it would be possible to assign resource consumption to certain levels of contribution to society. So, someone contributing 0% of their time only has access to the basic necessity infrastructure (housing, food, heating, electricity, water, internet, health services, transportation), but when people spend more of their time to society, they’re able to consume more.

As I am writing this, I’m thinking: “but what would someone get more of when the basic needs infrastructure is in place?”. And wouldn’t it also mean restricting people from accessing certain services or goods when they’re on the low end of the distribution?

And thinking further about that: isn’t what I refer to what the social credit system in China basically is?

Then I think it is a form of coercion: comply or else. You potentially lose “privileges” in the system if you’re not contributing to society or actively working against society (including having a deviant opinion about how society should function), making it (in the case of China) impossible for you to - for example - use transportation or more dire consequences like “reeducation”.

So basically I am backtracking on the idea described above. Thoughts?

1 Like
42

To me that basically is the same game we’re playing now. And once you start having this inequality in the system it can also be used to pay people off, hence corruption. If there will be no need for a price tag and much of society is automated, which only requires a skeleton workforce then it may be just OK if some do less.

You can basically see it as the open-source community. Sure, there are always a few who do most of the work. Then there are people who build just that one feature they want, or fix just that annoying bug. Others may just help with translations and submit bug reports. Then there are people who just use the software. All is valued. And these contributions of course result in respect in such a community. And maybe, just maybe we also thrive for that high salary to buy that amazing house/car so we get respect as well? But as a result also include a lot of noise that generates pollution, crime, corruption, etc.

There is also the psychological effect of feeling poor, not necessarily being poor. Which triggers negative effects in society as well. So if we don’t need to include such incentive to get more than basic needs, then I think we shouldn’t.

I also made a Zeit-Talks video about this.

1 Like
43

I saw that Zeit-Talk and loved the Star Trek reference! And I really like your answer because it’s spot-on!

Anyhow, my feeling is (puzzling all the pieces in the world together, be it intentional or by coincidence): social credit in China, AI advancements, proxy war with Russia and escalating tensions with China, Twitter acquired by Elon (who is close to Sam Altman, founder of OpenAI), CBDC, cashless society, SDG, digital ID’s, balance sheets of central banks exploding, inflation, economic instability, credit crises, inequality, climate crisis, polarization (not just in society, but by extension I’m referring to USD/BRICS as well), increasing talks of censorship of opposing views (exclusion, bubble forming), confidence crisis in politics, to name just a few… Aren’t we close to societal singularity, where everything collapses on itself globally (or something emerges from the escalating fear and discontent, so that it doesn’t collapse but gradually transitions into) and a new system based on AI, social credit, emerges from the ashes? Just a thought. I’m not saying this is good or bad, I’m not advocating conspiracies, it could (be it properly managed by society instead of authority and that society unbiased by propaganda) even be a better thing than what we have today and be a stepping stone towards no money at all.

It could even be a better democracy as what we have now. If personal freedom is secured and all opinions are valued and seen as contributions to society (negative opinions are imho just as valuable as positive opinions and is an opportunity to become something positive, if attentively listened to and followed up on instead of silencing and excluding as we do now).

If social credit would function as a mechanism to pull an individual towards society (low social credit would motivate society to help the individual be part of society instead of repelling them, and thus promotes inclusion and equality) instead of a privilege system (which would promote exclusion and corruption), I would totally be in favor of such a system.

I think this is becoming a topic on it’s own :smiley:.

1 Like
44

I think the social credit system already exists to some extent. For certain jobs you need a certificate of conduct, if you cross the street in the wrong way you get a fine, if you drive the wrong car in the city center you get a fine and if you studied something useful you get a well-paid job (most of the time).

But I’m not a huge fan of integrating it into society this much as China has.

“Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely.”

1 Like
45

Hello mic22,

This is the position of a self-taught social philosopher with working class background.

We are heirs an heiresses of the richest estate in history, However, our due annuity is blocked illegally.

Wealth is created socially, then privatised by a group of self-declared “wealth creators” who claim to be billions of times more productive than you and I.
Economic theories are rigged to justify such claim by, among other dogmas, asserting “there is no such thing as unearned income”.

Just to be clear, I am not a Marxist, communist, socialist or any other kneejerk label.
I think for myself first then listen to others’ expertise if I need to.

The philosophy and sociology of basic income has a long history. Most critics do not spend time getting duly informed before taking positions.

Kees has a phrase somewhere about nonviolent communication as a … method of communication absent of opinion and prejudice…
Not an easy practice, but without it we can not begin to work together.

46

i dunno depends, i heared the rent in new york starts at 2000, so that wouldn´t really work. unless you have somekind of point system for housing. now healthcare is almost totally free in my country, and i heared schooling is free for everybody all ages in austria. a dollar a day…

47

This topic was automatically closed 365 days after the last reply. New replies are no longer allowed.