Hacker News Reader

I strongly disagree with the overall idea expressed here - it seems to be based on a misconception. I was with you until this point:

They accept your money today on the tacit belief that you have provided enough value to someone else, somewhere else that it will even out in the end when it is their turn to consume.

Most merchants will not care whether you earned you money by doing one thing or another, found it in the street, got it from a rich uncle or the government. What they want to know is whether they will be able to exchange it for things they (and their business) need. If printing 1% more money results in a 1% increase in GDP, for instance, then there will be no inflation (simplification but mostly true) and everyone accepting the money an keep getting goods at the same prices.

A lot of times money is created for being invested, eg banks giving loans to finance ventures. This money has to be backed by some demand for the money - usually that is tied to the credit of the issuer. The credit of a government is backed by the tax income from those doing business in its jurisdiction. As long as that place attracts business, it will have tax revenue and therefore its money will cotinue to be valued. If it attracts 2% MORE business with 1% more money that's benefitting its economy.

As for your idea of fairness, getting something for nothing ... well that's why humans have societies and civilizations in the first place. Just by virtue of being human, you get all this nice stuff you wouldnt get in the jungle. We set up these systems to get something just for being human. And if we are to get anything, it is a safety net for all to prevent them from DYING due to market discipline. Limited liability corporations dont need it but HUMANS do.

And finally -- your expectations rise every decade with human progress. Do you really think we, the people living today, EARNED all the knowledge and advances and systems people invented in history who lived in the past? No, we ALL get the benefit for free. So how is your inheritance from humanity more deserved than preventing people from dying just by virtue of being human? Isnt that just... civilized?

> However, if the state either takes money (via tax) or centrally creates money (via inflation) to give a "guaranteed basic income", it is essentially forcing the store owner, truck driver, and rice farmer to work for free

We live in a society where production is large enough to cover all basic needs. That we still have famine, lack of health care and education is a big failure. Especially children - they are innocent, they are not responsible for this unequal situation.

Come next 20 years, robotics and A.I. will replace most of the work force. Then people will have to get BI to survive.

Consider the BI as an dividend from the common technological wealth of humanity. The rich own technology, exploit natural resources more and have financial tools that give them a huge advantage.

They can't hog the resources while other people starve, remain sick and uneducated. We don't need the morality of the industrial workforce of year 1900 any more.

I get the sense that you have no concept of what grinding, inescapable, lifetime, poverty looks like.

many of those citizens will leave once they understand what is going on

Are you talking about the article about rural Indian villages, or something else? Who is leaving for where?

I'm sure you realize this, but to make it explicit: that argument applies to virtually all government activity. From Social Security to Medicare to public roads to even the creation and enforcement of private property rights themselves. All of those things cost money, and for all of those things the government taxes some people and gives money to incentivize the labor of others.

And that's all fine and good to object to: I don't agree wholeheartedly with that idea, but I'm much more sympathetic to it than the average American, let alone the average anything else.

But you should still support a basic minimum guaranteed income, or at least replacing our current system of government benefits with it. Because it does not distort the market in the same way that all those other welfare schemes do. It's virtually impossible to be manipulated to favor any particular person or interest group, simply because everyone gets it. And while most current forms of welfare highly discourage work, the basic income doesn't because it doesn't phase out: instead of having de facto hidden marginal tax rates in excess of 100%, you get a simple and clear marginal tax rate that's the same as the list price.

> It's virtually impossible to be manipulated to favor any particular person or interest group, simply because everyone gets it.

Well, you can raise or lower the stipend and associated taxes, to benefit those with low or high incomes, respectively (in the short term). Hopefully there's some amount that is both sufficiently optimal theoretically and sufficiently politically attractive that we can settle on a single policy for managing that, though...

You can skip the "money as a signal" argument and still get that it's not fair. But don't the rice farmer and store keeper get the same thing, plus what they make from their business? That's how I've always imagined this sort of thing.

"And so you would leave a country structured like that."

So which country with zero welfare do you live in? Is it a nice place to live?

I don't get this argument. So the farmers, the truckers, the shopkeepers etc., will all quit right? This will cause supply of food to fall. But there is still demand for food, as always, thus prices soar.

And now, because of BI, all the people demanding food have money to pay for it. Thus, huge market opportunity to start a farm and get ahead?

Or perhaps, the farmers, truckers and shopkeepers wouldn't actually quit like you suggest.

> After all, you would leave a company structured like that, which diluted down your equity or awarded an unconditional salary to the flagrantly unproductive.

Not me. I am a selfish monster, and if my company paid me more (and treated me better) than I could get elsewhere, I would let them do horrible things like piss away money on losers.

Most people are selfish like me.