ZahzenEclipse

I trust them more than “alt” historians who use flimsy evidence.

I’m not sure I’d trust non historians about history.

Well you took the cowards way out. I was hoping you’d actually try to contend with any of the many points they made as it would be an interesting conversation but you had to lean on ad homs in the end.

I’m not sure how much I beleive it negatively affects the climate. I think fossil fuels have to be alot worse.

Okay so what I’m hearing is you want companies to make investments in artists directly - so a form of profit sharing essentially. Why would a company invest in artists if artists get all of the profits when its successful and the company loses all of the capital if it fails? Why would any business want to partake in a system like that?

Okay, but what does a system look like that moves past both? How do you ensure people get resources if you don’t want capitalism or a planned economy?

I agree broadly with much of your assessment of history and many of the problems that bely current western society. The rich might be exploiting capitalism to their benefit but a capitalist system with proper regulation will always be better (in terms of Quality of life and freedom) for larger groups of people Than a planned economy.

People need to expect to pay for art and entertainment. People should. It’s immoral and unethical to not pay for art and expect art to be there.

Who determines its unnecessary? The market? Government groups?

We’re still a far way away from the level of automation necessary to make working only 2 days a week feasible imo

Why would a business pay for these things that make their workers more efficient and then relinquish all of the profit that came from making things more efficient?

Do you think the majority of US citizens want higher taxes? There’s alot of de-programming that has to be done. Democrats, who are generally better than Republicans when it comes to this stuff (due to the low bar they’ve erected) aren’t necessarily full on board with tax increases.

Whats misleading about it?

"One glaring problem with allowing this program to exist for any extended period of time is that, unless it is privately funded, it would be too expensive to maintain and would require substantial tax increases across the board.

The group’s page even admits that, saying, “there’s a number of ways to pay for guaranteed income, from a sovereign wealth fund in which citizens benefit from shard national resources like the Alaska Permanent Fund, to bringing tax rates on the wealthiest Americans to their 20th century historical averages.”

I think it part of it may have been related to how high taxes might have to be made and it would be damn near impossible to pass those level of taxes. It couldn’t be done souly city by city I don’t think otherwise wealthy would flee the city to avoid the taxes levied - at least that woulf be a concern of mine.

Maybe it was related to pandemic stuff: https://www.kqed.org/news/11946467/study-shows-limits-of-stocktons-guaranteed-income-program-during-pandemic

It’s been awhile since I’ve looked into specifically anything UBI related so I could be misrembering.

Society couldn’t function if most people worked like you. I’m happy for you and it’s the exact place I want to be but I think its only possible in our current framework.

I thought instances where UBI has been tried, it’s failed - is that not the case?

Are there some shitty jobs that don’t deserve higher pay because of the value they contribute? Or do you see that being a business that shouldn’t exist? So let’s take a sewer company or something. Or any maintenance position where it’s not clear there’s a dollar value on the value being produced.

For example, restaurant probably aren’t possible if waiters and back of house are all paid 30/h.

I’m mostly trying to understand what you’re really trying to get at. I don’t think its possible for all jobs to be equally paying or be equally good - there’s always going to be inequality there. Unless you’re arguing there shouldn’t be shitty jobs but there’s literally always going to be shitty jobs in any society and economic framework you spin up.

Society will still need people who perform maintenance on sewers, do construction, clean building etc

I think I largely agree with your assessment that modern society and all its benefits mean that people get less day to day exercise via “normal” routine but I feel like I have to disagree that not having a local trail makes people unable to exercise. There’s people in NYC who run miles and miles every day. It’s possible anywhere.

If you don’t have funds to buy resources then that seems to be accurate scarcity no?