There are about 8 billion acres of land that can be used to grow crops. There are about 36 billion acres of land on the earth and there are about 7 billion people on earth. This means that each individual would receive a little over 1 acre of farmland and about 4 acres of other land if we were to divide it up today. One acre of farmland, if worked properly, can produce enough each year to feed a person.
At this density, land doesn’t just produce food on its own, so simply giving every man, woman, and child an acre of land will not feed them. The reality of the situation is that one acre of land plus a person with the knowledge and skill to work it can feed one person.
Fortunately the earth is full of bountiful other resources that also have value. These include the oceans which produce ample food to complement the farm land. It also includes oil and coal which magnify the amount of work a man can complete.
If we hit the reset button on property rights and allocated the earth's resources equally among all people through the issuance of 1 share per day per person, then the value of each share would be more than enough to sustain someone for a day. That is until market forces respond.
Trust Fund Paradox
What happens when a rich man dies and leaves his children with a huge trust fund? With all of their needs met and most of their wants covered, these individuals are often incapable of doing real work or starting real businesses. The vast majority will simply flounder as they consume their inheritance.
It is difficult to know the value of something you never had to earn. Without knowing the value of something, it is easy to squander resources.
Today’s world is much more valuable than the world 10,000 years ago due to the enhancements made by entrepreneurial individuals working hard and producing more than they consume. The root motivation for these entrepreneurial individuals is often survival. Without the threat of poverty, starvation, and/or death entrepreneurs are left with all carrot and no stick.
A world where all people inherit the earth would create a trust-fund society. Large swaths of the population would opt to produce nothing. It would be like being born into the Garden of Eden. Most people would simply pick the fruit and spend their time doing what ever fancied them (probably reproduce!)
Collapse of Productivity & New Equilibrium
Under this model the number of people willing to work a factory job or do hard labor in a field would collapse. The cost of labor would increase until it was well in excess of the daily inheritance. After all, if you received $1000 per day for life would you work any job that didn’t significantly increase your daily standard of living?
With this collapse in productivity you would see a corresponding collapse in the purchasing power of the daily inheritance. This collapse would continue until a new equilibrium was found where working hard to produce something could make a meaningful impact in your standard of living.
To put things in perspective, if no one worked at all and everyone attempted to live off of the their inheritance, then the earth would revert back to hunter-gather society and everyone would die of starvation. Long before this extreme was reached, the fall in the purchasing power of the daily income would motivate people to start producing again.
Equilibrium
The socialists among us believe they can control the economy and guarantee everyone a minimum standard of living. They believe this can be done without changing the economic incentives required to produce that standard of living. There is a feedback loop in play here.
Suppose you started out with the idea of giving everyone $1000 per day. Prices would change very quickly in response to this change in supply / demand. Eventually, $1000 per day would leave someone almost as poor (in purchasing power) as they started.
If you attempt to index the payouts to price inflation, then the ultimate result would be hyperinflation. The currency would become worthless.
Conclusion
In yesterday’s article I outlined a moral justification for a basic income defined as 1 share per day per person. I did not specify the purchasing power of that share, because that must fluctuate with supply and demand. The value of 1 share will fall until there is sufficient incentive for mankind to collectively start producing. No one knows what level that would be, but one thing is certain 1 share wouldn’t become worthless. We also know that attempting to live on this 1 share wouldn’t be pleasant to the vast majority either.
This conclusion means the socialists will not be happy because “no one should have to live on just 1 share per day” and the free market capitalists will also not be happy because “no one should get something for nothing”.
Rules for Implementing Basic Income
For any basic income system to be moral and viable then it must adhere to some very simple rules. The nominal rate of pay cannot change over time and the currency it is paid in must be free from any other meaningful sources of monetary inflation. Price inflation / deflation will then naturally establish the fair purchasing power of the basic income.
My approach to basic income is not based upon a desired outcome, but instead derived from first principles of property rights. The actual outcome is the natural result of applying fair principles for allocating the earths resources in a voluntary / non-violent manner.
As society moves to increasing levels of automation, the number of people required to actually work would fall. This would increase the value of 1 share without requiring additional labor. As the value of 1 share increases to a comfortable level (due to automation), the population will grow. This growth will increase the shares created each day until the value of 1 share falls again.
Those who are against this basic income because it is too high would deny their fellow man their natural inheritance and those who think it is too low would steal from one man to fund another. It is only in this “market balance” that all resources are fairly allocated.
Your last two articles just revolutionized the way I see the world once more.
Your feedback is worth more than an rewards Steemit could pay.
"Too much thinking creates and re –in forces the ‘me’ - person or ego – identity."
Really though, could there be a more harmful statement?
It's essentially saying "Don't think too much, you might become someone of importance and start to think highly of yourself"
The ego is not harmful. It is the essential thing that is "you". It shouldn't be silenced, but properly utilized, and as far as it's possible, reflect on its position, outlook and past behaviours.
Sometimes we need to be silent to do these things, but that doesn't mean that you stop "thinking" or that you stop using your brain.
Proper meditation is meant to induce clearity, not death. It is meant to enable, rather than disable you.
=)
So why not upvote?
I voted now. I came back here to vote and saw your comment.
I did vote only with 1% and I'm thinking about making those kind of votes on post I recognized as important but who might not necessarily need more $ or who don't accept monetary reward.
It's tricky because I wouldn't want other place for this post other than all the way up to the top of today's post. This is so because I feel like this post deserve more visibility than any other post made today and that I feel everyone would gain from understanding this post. So I'm thinking I might be voting with 100% power in similar situation in the future taking in consideration post's visibility and other factors.
Now all thing reconsidered, I feel like, as time pass, it will be made clear that everyone will gain from making sure to read what big Steem shareholders are publishing so visibility might not be such an issue. We'll see.
Steem is so full of dynamics I am not habituated to. I'm learning everyday.
I was replying to @dantheman. I didn't understand why he said someone's opinion is valuable but he didn't upvote.
Haha! Funny misunderstanding! Maybe the fact that I hadn't even cared to upvote my comment before he made his. My answer to your question even though it wasn't address to me still stands.
I would call this share "Fairness" cos that's what it is, and I believe it would have huge potential to become the world's currency as it rectifies the fraudulent allocation of the world's resources as took place till now. It is about giving people back their natural entitlement to this Planet and its resources.
"Basic Income" is something else, it is guaranteeing a minimum amount for survival. it could become a token (the BIC you mentioned in another thread) pegged to a necessities basket on the "Fairness" platform, but would be a political decision (hopefully taken by decentralized governance)
Tangential to the discussion, but based on the first couple of paragraphs - The agricultural model of feeding one person per acre is based on big industrial ag, not regenerative or even sustainable systems. It's a system that strips the land of nutrients for profit.
The arable lands of the world could easily support 20 billion people, if managed even halfway decently. A family of four can provide enough food for themselves on 1/10 of an acre, plus have enough left over to barter and pay additional bills. And once the system is in place, the labor is constant, but fairly light. This wouldn't include large livestock, such as cattle, obviously. But small goats, ducks, chickens, rabbits, quail, etc., could all be included on a small scale.
More OT
This is central to the discussion, simply based on the human factor in the equation. IMO, the whole concept of attempting to provide for "each according to their basic need" without them producing anything of value (other than perhaps CO2), defeats both the individual and the culture.
Exactly! This is why I believe the market equilibrium of basic income would leave someone well below the poverty line.
The question of whether or not a Basic Income should be implemented hinges upon each individual's subjective estimation of where the equilibrium point would be. Would 1 share be worth $1 or $50 per day?
In my opinion, implementing a currency system in this manner would be worth doing because it would be close enough to "fixed supply" to get all of the desired benefits of a stable currency, it wouldn't be debt based, and it wouldn't transfer wealth unfairly. In aggregate it would also prevent concentration of wealth. So even if everyone only got $1 per day it would still be worth doing.
We have a real life example of this in Zimbabwe... Productive commercial farms were seized and their owners dispossessed. The land was then given to "war veterans" to appease them and buy their vote for the incumbent geriatric "Bob" Mugabe to continue his "elected dictatorship" and presidency for life.
In a short couple of years Zimbabwe went from Africa's "breadbasket" to the "basket-case" of Africa.
Many now migrate to SA just to stop from starving, I have employed many of them...
University graduates working in farmlands at minimum wage just to have something to send back to their starving families back home... they then send physical cash back home because back home, due to hyperinflation, the local currency totally collapsed.
Zim then switched to the USD but because there are no USD's available citizens resort to trust and IOU's to transact. The rich have splendid bank account balances but can do nothing with it as there is no liquidity to draw out cash.
Now many more people have land, the economy has collapsed and very few have food... one more drought and Zimbabwe becomes Ethiopa... dependent on international food aid, when they have some of the most fertile soil in the world but the newly possessed have no knowledge of how to make it work on anything more than a subsistence level and even that is done poorly.
Just wanted to add...
Also - this would depend on the growing methods. Vertical/hydroponic (even aquaponic) growing could reduce the necessary space and resources to achieve the same or better output/quality. A properly managed greenhouse can extend growing seasons as well.
Right. There are a lot of factors, such as climate, latitude, water availability, etc. If you really go vertically, all sorts of game-changers are on the table. I was just speaking basically, at ground level or maybe with some elevated beds. With what you're describing, the sky literally is the limit, even on a postage stamp lot.
just FYI if agriculture is involved you can also go upwards, with astounding effects. (indoor farming)
And even when not, using greenhouses can double or triple production per area even on currently high-intensity farming.
Resteemed and tweeted @dantheman !
pardon my noob question - what does "resteemed" mean?
It means they shared this blog with their followers on Steemit.
you click on the backway going arrow and the post is shown your followers as it would be yours.
Know Retweet? Same.
Ah, thanks!
Its simular to retweeting on twitter . When resteemed you are essentially showing everyone that follows you what you resteemed
I've been thinking that the best way to implement basic income in a country would be to redistribute certain percentage of it's GDP to citizens. Only thing that needs to be decided is the percentage, otherwise it's just an algorithm that can run on a bank server. Money is collected as tax and automatically paid as basic income.
Benefit is that it's really simple. No need for complicated bureaucracy.
But how to implement that in a blockchain system? Redistribute certain percentage of the market cap to individuals?
Trust Fund Paradoxon:
As "The millionaire next door" has shown, people who worked hard for their money are way more frugal then those who have inherited it. That also applies to the children of those hard workers.
However, regardless of those circumstances most of the people today, especially in the USA, are consumer suckas. They may work hard to get the 6-figure, but they also spend hard.
The most important point in deciding if a child will be frugal is - surprise! - the leading and example of their parents.
But those frugal parents have a problem - our earth destroying consumption society. Funnily that is the same that would keep the producing going on if you introduce the UBI.
That would also prevent a sudden collapse of production. (60% of people say they would work the same or only slightly less hours if they had an UBI)
It would also make sure, I think, that there is a (mostly) sufficient equlilibrium. (A few people always need more, like old folks with Alzheimer).
Talking about Alzheimer: About half of the work done is NOT payed. That mostly applies to much needed social reproduction work (reproduction here does not mean children but e.g. caring for the Alzheimer people). Havin an UBI would increase the affordability (time and money, really interchangable here, if you have to work, you have no time) for such work, especially in the care sector. That on the other hand would save a lot of money (one care place costs about 3-4 times of an UBI and has only bad service because of not enough people, and then even those few are badly paid, especially compared to the work they do)
And then there is of course automatisation. It is the easiest to see in the farming sector: 200 years back 3/4 were working on producing food (german numbers), today its about 3/4 of an %!
Other productions have also increased tenfold or more per head.
The computerisation and the robotisation will do this for other parts of workforce too. It should be possible, even with current technology, to make an automated waste collection truck for example.
100 Years back Keynes predicted that the people would only work 15-20 hours per week.
You laugh?
Well, he didnt predict computers and TVs and other expensive items that add a few hours. Or expensive cars that every family member has. He also didnt predict that house sizes would triple in the US in those 100 years. That are his flaws.
But it is perfectly possible to live on the sizes of 100 years back, with modern improvements (like heating), with just 15 hours of work a week.
In the US, once you paid for your house, you can easily live on 20K a year for... no, not one person, but 3 people. And you can easily get a perfect house for ten times this.
IIRC 15 hour work weeks was standard in the Feudal system, interestingly.
huh? maybe 15 hours workday, but not week.
But of course you just cant compare feudal times with today.
our current situation is a derivative of fuedalism. The workdays were more leisurely. People work ore because industrial revolution brought about some dehumanizing qualities to modern life despite the individualist values of the enlightenment becoming recognized. We live in an increasingly dehumanizing culture despite rights. We live to work, which is non-humanistic way of life. There's no reason for it to be this way aside from it's the shitstorm that's evolved. By values comparison, the work life of modern time is like the torture of medieval times
http://blogs.reuters.com/great-debate/2013/08/29/why-a-medieval-peasant-got-more-vacation-time-than-you/
I think most people forgot that already half of us live on an Basic Income. Children from their parents, jobless from social security, old people from whatever source is giving them money.
Think about it. The only step is to increase it to the other half and then to make it unconditional.
Exactly! Remove the politics from it.
If I understand what you say, civil liability is more than clear, I have no job today, more than what I generate on the internet, but in my house there is no lack of food. This point is clear.
Sorry to mix things up, when I blame the policy I mean that the producer who works the land does not have credit help and price tracking, to improve his field and maintain the peonada, there is no incentive to till the land. Today the field producer receives $ 1.50 Argentine pesos for each kilo produced of tomatoes and the price of sales to the public are $ 30 or $ 35 pesos, I understand, freight costs, base and all hidden expenses, these things are the That the producer discourages, they kill themselves working and others make America, it happens with the animals, the cereals, the flour.with all the red, not to speak with a bad harvest or the storm of the nature, the great loss for the producer .
To reestablish the work of the field, there is no incentive for campesinos to return to the countryside, to earn more money by doing tourism in the countryside or by renting for sport hunting, where I hold my government responsible for state politics, land is the basis of A country, it is of public knowledge that my country is wrong. It is not only the field is clear, there is corruption, the outgoing government possesses half in its power parents with their cronies.
Excellent post as always sir,@dantheman congratulations, thanks for sharing
In my province of Corrientes there are millions of hectares of abandoned land, the villagers migrated from the countryside leaving to the city to work, this happens due to lack of policies and economic aid of the government of my country, this is not of now. As a child I worked the land, tobacco, maize, cassava, potatoes, sweet potatoes, and all kinds of vegetables and fruits, I left my native house at the age of 14 and left for Buenos Aires Capital Federal, today I am 48 years old , See how many years ago this problem.
The problem is worse than that, the worst thing is that there are children who die from malnutrition, with so much fertile land to plant, by this I mean that it is not only a problem of the government, it is a problem of education, not wanting to work, To till the ground for the food of thy people.
I am from a humble family, I lived in a street situation, I wanted to educate myself and to get ahead, my country has so much land to feed the world.
Unfortunately, it will not change if investment policies, export policies, education, instilling love of work, social responsibility do not change.
We have Lands, we own the biggest aquifer of fresh water, the reserves of waters in the glaciers. My country in 50 years would have to abstain the world with food and be a global power in supply, measures that change the ways of seeing things and govern for the prosperity of the country and its people.
This is false. Back in 1850 people thought that the industrial revolution would make many things obsolete. For example people who's business was around horses thought they would starve when faced with the steam engine and trains. They couldn't imagine that the new technology would bring exponentially more jobs and additional opportunities that they could have never imagined.
Same thing applied today. Many people in most of the world have the very basics which is shelter and food. The problem is that we have it in excess and so other needs are created like healthcare services due to immobility, obesity or even old age because of advancements in medical technology. The market always surprises us because our needs evolve in an unimaginable way. For example basic needs today involve talking through a piece of glass and plastic that transmits electrical signals that somehow satisfy our need for socialisation. If you have said that to Manslow when he was creating his pyramid he would have called you crazy.(This is also why Manslow's pyramid is mostly bullshit).
Automation will change nothing. If anything it will increase needs in other means of employment. New businesses that we can't even fathom will emerge. Eventually the laws of nature will create the same market forces as we seen today. The problem is not the economic system but our human nature. The more we move towards a less-human, more mechanical entity that moves towards immortality the more ideas of balance will apply
I would say that your assessment is half true. Once we manage to invent the Star Trek replicator and teleporter powered by renewable energy with no moving parts then clearly the need for additional production would change. Now obviously this is sci-fi, but all automation moves us one step closer to this outcome.
Nothing in life is black and white. There is a continuum. Supply and demand are always at work and that is the heart of my message.
Who is to say that "exploration" of star systems won't be a new currency itself? Abundance in the domain of self sufficiency will create more needs elsewhere. This is self evident from human history.
When everyone has food, shelter, and healthcare covered, then nobody will care to compare themselves to others in respect to these aspects. People always compare themselves with those who have more, and there is always people who have more. (check out today what society's problem is. the "wealth gap". We compare ourselves with the billionaires, not the Somalis.)
The laws of physics apply to us as with everything else in the universe. They create entropy. This is how some end up with more and others with less. Balance is impossible. I don't see how this can be applied in the real world, heck even in theory.
Life is the opposite of entropy. The laws of physics are not actually "laws", but simply best known description for how the world works.
I don't know what "problem" you think cannot be solved is. My stated problem is, "how to divide the world's resources fairly". That is a problem that can be solved for certain definition of "fair" being all men created equal receiving equal opportunity and equal inheritance of the natural resources of the universe.
You have identified a separate problem which is that even if everything was "mathematically fair", people may not perceive things to be fair. That is a truly intractable issue.
Entropy is a matter of perspective. Life for us living things, is not entropic but in the grander scale of things, considering the universe is a few billion years old, it is very much entropic. One can see the dessolate star systems and call them "ordered" and characterise us as "chaotic" since we are the exception to the rule.
Check human history. Any age. The gap in wealth widens as specialisation and industries grow. The reason for this correlation is because the more industries we create the more menial positions we need. The more menial positions we need to cover the less CEO's we need. This is how 1% ends up owning almost everything on the planet. Heck even in feudalism the percentage was more around 10%. In Ancient Egypt the gap between the slaves and the citizens was much smaller. Same applies with ancient Greece.
What is fair for me might not be for you. This is again because of entropy. People grow in different environments, different cultures, have different histories, customs. We cannot possibly come together by means of agreeing with something as generic as "fair".
Nonetheless, we live better lives today compared to any time in human history. The gap actually helps people since we all grow richer and even taste the upper strata once in a while.
Equally as important (and dangerous) is a) who is the arbiter of what is fair and b) who decides who is the arbiter of this fairness?
Basic survival requires food, water and shelter. Beyond that, it is necessarily subjective because there will always be perspective influencing what someone deserves and what others think someone deserves.
Apart from protecting people from starvation, thirst, disease and freezing/burning to death, I'm not sure how a system could be implemented without an opt-in charity component.
That's a good argument for why people will keep creating despite being comfortable survival wise. as it's always been . I'm not sure global/universal basic income is possible or even desireable, actually the incoherence of it is easy to see, when dividing shares, who has the right to bring more share-holders into the world? How many per person?
The only solutions are nationalistic or even fascist by modern standards.
you confuse needs with wants.
Anyway, the increase in production has always outpaced the loss of jobs, so we can easily "loss" jobs for people not working at all and still improve material standard of living (which is arguable more bad then good).
And I am not even talking about bankers who complain that when their non-producing job of shoveling money from A to B and to C in 0,2 seconds does pay them less then half a million of bonuses.
Needs and wants are actually very close together. What is a need for you in the western world is not necessarily for someone else across the African Savanna.
as for the rest that you said, I don't undestand what you are trying to say
Its an answer to kyriacos who wrote:
Back in 1850 people thought that the industrial revolution would make many things obsolete. They couldn't imagine that the new technology would bring exponentially more jobs and additional opportunities that they could have never imagined.
-- and a lot of that additional jobs and production has moved into wants.
Wants and needs are close together, but fairly easy to decide which is which.
Having a heated, dry house is a need. Having triple the space of the people 100 years ago is a want.
Having (preferably quality) food is a need, going out to let someone cook for you is a want.
Having a phone today is often a need. Having a 600$ iPhone instead of a 30$ cheapo is a want.
Having an 30 inch TV is maybe a need (and that is very debatable, that TV is a need), but having a 60+ inch with 300 channels cable is a want, and a very stupid too.
In most cases you can recognize wants as "having MORE" of the same.
"Automation will change nothing. If anything it will increase needs in other means of employment."
The question then is if these other means of employment require the same skills, smartness, knowledge and numbers as the "old" jobs, and if people are willing to pay for their being done by a human. After all, the goal of automation at the moment isn't freeing people of unpleasant jobs to make them happier and pursue other callings, but making unskilled labour, and even skilled labour if at all possible, obsolete.
I just wonder if the minimum skill level required to get or do any job isn't rising. If that is so, new opportunities aren't enough to stop excluding a growing number of people.
we are always goign to have unpleasant jobs. what was an unpleasant job in the 1750's was a dream job a century earlier.
Keep working, stop paying.
This novel outlines it but gets bogged down in some hierarchy better left to the folks on the scene.
http://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/624?msg=welcome_stranger
As long as money remains the poor will jump when the rich say to do so, or they will starve.
Any solution that leaves the oligarchy on top is not solving anything, but merely kicking the revolution down the road.
This is an ideal system and I like it very much. But as it is now to change the current system?
Impressive, I think this writing will turn on the imagination of some people. Resteemed
Hypothetically, what would it look like to implement these ideas here in the Steemit rewards system?
Steem would need to have identity uniqueness validated in a decentralized manner. It would also need to minimize all other inflation. It would be a completely different thing.
If only there was a reset button and greed didn't seem like a part of human nature... I think it's a great idea, but I'm just not sure how well it would melt with the rest of the ingredients humanity has in store. I can be a bit of a cynic though haha
All you have to do to implement this system is to create a cryptocurrency that follows the rules "1 share per unique person per day" and then convince people to adopt it as a currency (similar to convincing people to adopt Bitcoin).
Plus it would be easier to convince people to adopt it as a currency as time goes by, especially since many jobs will be automated and people will lose their income, because not everyone adapts easily.
Also, many people now complain that this generation is entitled. If that was true, that means they they would be far more likely to adopt such a currency than the opposite.
Why resist when you can take advantage of the current situation to do some good.
I think that this huge, and it has been passing almost inadvertently, I wish this post had the payment accepted so we can boost it in the first page
I wasted so much time thinking how to achieve these goals politically, when the answer was always through financial means! (it's really all about replacing the dollar with something like this).
I hope and pray you will have time develop this coin.
Proof of Unique Person might be the challenging part, as well as keeping eventual biometric data acquired safe away from governments etc .
The problem with trying to implement these things politically is that you will always have opposition.
This is exactly why all attempts at Communism have ended in mass graves and/or forced starvation.
Exactly how I feel. There's so many things to take into account.
In this life, we certainly will not get everything we want. Sometimes grateful, sometimes have to be patient. We both know, real life is not the same with the drama. Not just as movies, where the hero always be the winner.
how much is one gigabyte of computer memory worth today
how much was it worth a hundred years ago?
It didn't exist a hundred years ago. So it is worth a lot more today. :)
when was it invented and what did it cost at that time?
I recall the winchester drives when I worked in the UnderGround at SAC headquarters...rows and rows and rows of them..Each one was the size of a dishwasher..each one cost about twenty thousand dollars, each one had two platters...30 megabytes in one...30 in the other (30-30...get it?)
The whole room, costing millions of dollars...can be replaced to day....for free?
How many gigibytes does amazon..google, dropbox...etc...give each basic account...for free?
Note..the price of memory had come down a LOT from the days of 'core memory" actual magnetic do nuts...every see em?
so How can you say it's worth a lot more today?
I just answered your question. Was not entering a debate. It did not exist one hundred years ago. First memory was in Vacuum tubes during World War 2, the other memory became available after Transistors and then micro chips were invented. It took a couple of decades before gigabyte RAM was possible. So it was actually not invented that long ago, yet that is subjective. Things move VERY fast in tech.
What is your point?
the point is that EVERYTHING is getting cheaper.
what did a ton mile cost?
What did fabric cost?
etc etc etc.
EVERYTHING is cheaper.
especially the currency.
That's the problem
Today's dollar is worth about a penny compared to when The Fed was established.
This needs to be taken into consideration when speaking of basic income.
We actually almost have it.
when self replicationg 3D printers arrive in the next few years...
we pretty much will
gota go.
back in a few hours.
Since you first posted this UBI token idea, I saw a parallel with SteemPower. Is my assumption correct? I am making a post about this...
SP is an investment vehicle, apart from the voting power it has, that was the intent to keep it in for 2 years, and the "interest"/"dividends"/inflation that is given to such an investment.
I see these ideas as an extension of your original vision with SteemPower as part of Steem, and taking this goal more global to implement it as part of the evolving future we progress towards.
Thanks for sharing how you see things developing and proposing viable solutions to make a better world.
Another great piece and thanks for sharing. Upvoted and shared on Twitter✔ for my followers to read. Stephen
Disclaimer: I am just a bot trying to be helpful.
I know I'm likely the last person you want commenting on your post Dan given my cookie jar comic posted earlier but I can't help but notice you've switched the payout off on this post... Thank you dude. Honestly.
I apologize if I wrote it in such a way you felt uneasy coming in and commenting on it. My passion often is confused with rage to those unable to parse my terribly written posts and writing style.
To be honest I don't blame you for not stepping in to comment and for the time being I'll drop it but eventually I hope you find the time to forgive me for doing what I felt was necessary to protect STEEM and her users at the time.
In regards to your post here though..
Are you a firm believer in that all members of this proposed basic income society should receive an equal share of resources regardless of their input or what skills they bring to the collective?
While fundamentally the idea of everyone getting the same seems like it could work one thing that I still have yet to wrap my head around is with this system you value lets just say a "programmer" the same as a "burger flipper"... That just doesn't seem fair that the guy capable of building nearly anything is rewarded the same as the mcdonalds lackey..
It would be as if we all on STEEM decided we'd like to start all accounts at baseline again.. Everyone was equal.. But all those that had spent the time getting their reps up would end up penalized whereas those who'd not put in the time and effort wouldn't know any different.
I guess this is the problem I see with this system. However in my model I'm not including job wages as I'm not sure that is part of this model you're hypothetically building.
One of the problem is that it is not possible to give a value to a contribution. Van Gogh and Nikola Tesla made tremendous contributions to the society, they both ended their life poor and frustrated. This is why it is "fairer" to attribute the same income to all. The evaluation of what this income should be is not easy neither, like this discussion is demonstrating. As money is a tool to accomplish objectives, the most interesting part of the discussion, up to me, is how do we implement common goals inside a community.
That's interesting. I've asked the question, "Should society as a collective have distinct goals and aspirations separate from the goals and aspirations of individuals in that society?" Those in power believe the answer to this question is yes, and furthermore only a special "elite" class of people are qualified to establish those goals for the collective. Unfortunately they also believe setting rules for individuals is also necessary, and they don't care about the Non Aggression Principle.
A related question is, "in the absence of explicit societal goals (or a recognized process to establish them), would it be possible to identify societal goals from the varied and diverse activities of individuals in the collective? That is, to identify collective goals out of the emergent properties of individual actions.
If you're an anarchist and don't believe in a ruling class, but believe mankind would be better served by establishing goals for collectives, how is consensus reached on what those goals should be? What constitutes a "quorum" (i.e. what is the minimum number of people required to establish a "societal" goal? Doesn't that imply those people also "represent" the 80% members? Are there ownership issues associated with collective goals, or are these considered part of the "commons" (i.e. 20% of the members of a hypothetical anarchistic society want to establish a community park. Are members in the 80% category allowed to use the park at no cost? I say that would not be "fair" to those who made the effort to create the park. If the cost to use the park was zero or minimal for the 20% members and 80% members had to pay a per-use fee, now that seems reasonable by comparison.
One thing is very clear - if participation is ALWAYS voluntary, it eliminates a huge number of problems!
I agree with you but it is even more difficult in the case where goals are opposite. I and other environmentalists want to develop renewable energy, when the oil lobby want to continue to make profit by extracting more oil from the ground. There are polluting my air and changing my climate. The majority do not have a clue about the energy problem and health problem. How can we choose a direction ? If I have a basic income I will continue to promote renewable energy and the oil energy will continue to o extract oil. I want a state able to take decisions and go forward (especially when nobody knows in which direction is forward :) )
What you described is communism which is not what I am advocating. Everyone would receive the same for doing nothing. After that it is up to people to trade. The programmers would earn more than burger flippers.
What I am saying is we are all born naked and we all have an equal share in our inheritance of this planet. What we do with our share determines our standard of living.
Imagine diving up resources on an island. No one was a prior owner and no one had earned anything, yet the island was there for them to divide.
Thanks for explaining the difference to me and educating me otherwise.
Greatly appreciated. I'm not nearly as educated on this "isms" as you seem.
That second paragraph in the way you've worded it resonates with me immensely. Give everyone a fair start and allow them to make of it what they will. This makes sense if we'd had this ideal earlier in our societal development, but sadly the world we live in nearly all land is claimed by some governing party.
If we had an island why would dividing it up into sections be beneficial over say everyone being allowed to use all parts of the island? Would a preference for all being shared be a communist ideal or would it simply be resource sharing without stipulation of ownership and property areas?
<3 Thank for the reply man and also wording down a bit so my less than genius mind can comprehend the idea you're putting forth.
The way you laid it out just now makes far more sense than the way I'd parsed your previous posts. I'm sorry for ridiculing the idea previously out of lack of understanding. That was extremely immature of me to do so without first seeking a better bearing on the model being put in front of me.
My model does not depend on land division. It also does not depend on a global reset. Land is a concrete way of visualizing an abstract idea. Money and shares solves all the issues by making divisions absolutely perfect and absolutely abstract.
I'd actually be interested to see a diagram of your proposed model.
(as my doodles probably hint to you I'm very much a visual learner)
Does not depend on a global reset eh? Sounds to me like somebody plans to buy some land and start their own country... Which in all reality as crazy as it sounds could actually be feasible... given enough resources pooled and offered to the right current governing body in exchange for uncontested "ownership" of that territory for this new nation.
Now, I know Steemit is just a beginning of some your plans Mr.Dan and this platform is serving as a prototype vessel in order for you to float your ideas..
Please correct me if I'm reading too deeply between the lines but are you actually proposing these things with intention of making it a reality in the next 5-10 years? ~blinks~
I want to help create a world where we encourage everyone to live each moment, guided by faith, to pursue their purpose with passion.
Physical, biological, evolution seems to giving way to spiritual, technological and presumably non-biological, evolution.
We must strive for empathy, compassion, and love (unconditionally) as we continue.
Technological growth appears to be accelerating.
Exponential times call for exponential measures!
Looking Forward to working together with you all,
Fast Entrepreneur
All this time and energy pontificating about turning on an imaginary money machine that gives everyone free money. Except that it would simply raise the cost of everything, because that is how the real world economy works. Go look at the only real world example in Alaska. Everything costs a fortune and the government can decide to take it away for "budget Reasons", dooming all the people dependent on it to "gasp" have to earn it again.
Instead of wasting time contemplating winning the lotto, the lead steem developer could have been working on something that could actually pay people for efforts that are valued here on steemit. He could have been trying to figure out how to implement the promises he made trying to get investor support for steem, including making it so users can pay at least 1 cent for a vote, and making sure the economy and pegs work as described in the whitepaper. Or, he could have simply asked the users what features are most important, in a last ditch effort to retain users and keep the project from crashing.
But, pontificating about winning the lotto is much more fun...
All work and no play is a good way to burn out. You post shows an attitude of entitlement. I don't tell you how to spend your time.
How exactly do you think ideas like Steem came about in the first place?
Saying the tone is "an attitude of entitlement" for pointing out that people expect you to keep your promises about steemit and want it to work better, says a lot more about you than me. Matter of fact, that explains a whole lot of why users and their requests are treated like insignificant noise around here.
When you are done dreaming, remember the promises you made to the investors and users. The ones that helped you get steem started here, not on golos.io.
Exactly what are the promises you're referring to @tinfoilfedora? Are they explicit or is your perspective just a matter of interpretation? Is there a specific section of the whitepaper where they are listed, or perhaps are they to be found elsewhere? If your assertion is accurate I think the entire steemit community would be extremely interested in the claims of promises broken.
Seeing that everyone is jumping back and forth on factual opinions, I would just love to say: Bless all your calculating minds !
Have a stunning eve
Hmm...maybe basic income is not as good as I thought lol!
It's good that you started writing with the option "decline payout".
I'm enjoying reading your ideas about basic income very much. However, I think you underestimate the productive nature of human beings and the value of incentives other than survival or money.
Almost everyone I know has something productive they do outside of their paying jobs. In other words, they spend 40 hours a week working to make a living, and then they voluntarily, for no money at all, do the work that matters to them. For some this is volunteer work to help the less fortunate, others garden, sew, make things, create art. Look at all the developers working on open source projects for no pay.
In the early days of the Libyan revolution, when the protesters took Benghazi, one of the first things they did was go out and start cleaning and fixing up the city. For nothing. Because it was theirs and they wanted it to be nice.
If you don't take that part of human nature into consideration, only looking at greed and laziness, you're missing a major part of human behavior. Any systems created from those assumptions will necessarily be flawed.
I fully believe people are productive for non-finanical reasons.
This post has been linked to from another place on Steem.
Advanced Steem Metrics Report for 13th November 2016 by @ontofractal
Is SteemPower and Steem the Brainchild for a Basic Income? by @krnel
Basic Income is a fantasy through socialized theft, it sucks, the end. Or is it? by @krnel
Outside the Tribal Meme Space: UBI for Non-Socialists by @lukestokes
Learn more about and upvote to support linkback bot v0.5. Flag this comment if you don't want the bot to continue posting linkbacks for your posts.
Built by @ontofractal
@Dantheman
Thank you for sharing!
I think I will need to have a dialogue with you in the future to better understand your perspectives and to ask questions (a back and forth discussion).
The future is almost here :)
Why do I have a feeling that saying may never get old, lol (and yet, I'm pretty sure some one out there, much smarter than myself, will have the opposite perspective)
Stay Strong!
Have Fun!
Give Thanks!
"Today’s world is much more valuable than the world 10,000 years ago due to the enhancements made by entrepreneurial individuals working hard and producing more than they consume."
No Dan.
today's world is much more valuable because of the hard work of entrepreneurs AND their workers.
what we see is the-workers to consume all they earn and entrepreneurs some.
is this the-truth?
we see the-sun circling the-earth.
is this the-truth?