Well, it depends. My preference would be to replace our money-based subsistence on something else, some collectivist way of cooperating that differs fundamentally from the market-based way we think about these things. But that would be revolutionary, not evolutionary. And, unlike the Marxists, I'm not convinced the natural next step is ubiquitous socialism. A little bit of socialism here and there is a good thing. I'm a member of 2 Co-Ops and they perform better than any for-profits I've ever witnessed. But Co-Ops come with their own pitfalls.
So, UBI is a nice compromise. And I like the (Yang's) idea that scaling the UBI allows for compromise between righties and lefties w.r.t. extant social services like unemployment insurance. I.e. stop collecting UI premiums from employers and employees, then pay it out when you prove you were laid off and simply provide a subsistence income to everyone, regardless of employment status. That removes the middle-man insurance industry and makes that more efficient. But fundamentally, ideologically, UBI is a band-aid, not a solution. If we're stuck with capitalism, then I'm for UBI. If we can get out from under capitalism, then I'm not. On 5/4/21 10:03 AM, Pieter Steenekamp wrote: > Okay, I'm happy with that. It's just that on UBI we probably have very > similar views. I also agree with the views expressed by the psychologytoday > reference you gave above about You Are Not Your Work. > > But, maybe my reading of your comments are wrong? Do you support UBI? -- ↙↙↙ uǝlƃ - .... . -..-. . -. -.. -..-. .. ... -..-. .... . .-. . FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6 bit.ly/virtualfriam un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/
