Silicon Valley wants to tackle UBI for three (simpler) reasons: It’s a math problem, it’s a massive solution they think out of anyone else’s capacity and it’s an ‘easy’ good deed that shows they don’t only think about social networks, stealing data and selling ads.
-
-
-
Also, there are like 5 different ‘twin’ Silicon Valleys, so people tend to confuse them, or worse, think of them as the same one. This article seems to be about one of them.
-
Also, I really like reading your tweets. They make me think. So thanks for that.
- End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
Is there a difference?
-
It's like winning the lottery, you can take a lump sum or the monthly payments.
-
Right. As in... no real difference. Or people can convert one to the other. Though I do think the framing and psychology of it must matter in that nudgey sort of way. Also one reason I like guaranteed income is that it may spur more entrepreneurship, so
@rushkoff take that? -
A tax regime that would make UBI viable might also make new wealth accumulation (modulo the occasional surprise unicorn) much more difficult
-
US gov't is quite competent at (progressively) taxing income, but has no such competence in wealth taxation. So I'd expect a gov't UBI regime to lean on taxation of income, not wealth A natural bias emerges towards endeavors that create wealth but not income (e.g. startups)
-
I'm personally ambivalent about this outcome. But I've found it funny for years that a certain 2012 presidential candidate never seemed to connect that increasing entrepreneurship would likely come from softening downside (rather than juicing upside) risks
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
So, let's have "basically UBI, but riskier." Yeah, sounds economically literate all around.
-
Also, Russia's "voucher privatization" in 1992-1994 should really put the fear of God into advocates of redistributing alienable assets...
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
Or just make land the universal basic asset, which is the point of LVT.
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
-
I mean, yes, assets are the root of income and therefore more valuable, but he seems to contradict himself. Does he believe people will take on more entrepreneurial risk, or just be content to live off the teat, under UBI?
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
What industries pay for people to talk to pundits? Seems kinda entitled. His idea isn’t terrible, but it’s coated in anti tech splooge, so hard to take in without throwing up a little
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
Perhaps it just appears easier to eliminate misery than outcompete businesses built on it like Walmart and Dollar General.
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
This is why a UBI has to be tied to ownership of capital via a social wealth fund.
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
Not fully aligned with reality...yes we kniw what Piketty wrote. But those most affected by UBI need the cash flow to support their life (cost of healthcare, education, daycare cost etc). They will be forced to sell the asset sooner rather than later..
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.