• Melllvar@startrek.website
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    8
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    Every time I see this it’s a small group within a larger capitalist society. So of course the results are beneficial to the recipients; it’s not really proving anything in that respect.

    The problem as I see it is how to make it work as its own self-sustaining economic system.

    • scarabic@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      1 year ago

      That’s a worthwhile point. However the whole trick with capitalism is to have some counterbalances in it so it doesn’t become an absolute jungle. The SNAP program is a minor program within the scope of capitalism but it’s aimed at preventing the absolute worst of the worst outcomes.

      So small anti-capitalist programs are actually an essential part of capitalism. Unless you want to have absolutely no floor and watch 5-10% of people literally starve.

      • Melllvar@startrek.website
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        1 year ago

        But programs such as the one in the OP are supposed to be prototypes for a universal basic income. I’ve seen a number of these experiments crop up in the news, and it’s always just proving that the recipients thrived more. Which, ok, is good in and of itself.

        But wasn’t it obvious? Was it ever even really the question for UBI? Or is the real question about whether and how it can scale up and become self-sustaining?

        • scarabic@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          1 year ago

          Well the outcome might seem obvious to you but there are definitely those that say “they’ll just waste it on drugs and booze” or “if they knew how to manage their money they wouldn’t be homeless.” I’m not saying these are good arguments but they’re common. And I think there’s a reasonable amount of doubt that even compassionate people might have.

          And aside from that, even if you believe totally in people’s good intentions and desire to thrive, there are many questions about how much is enough, who thrives more or less, how long it takes to show results… Many things we should rightly study to inform any future efforts.

          So you seem to be objecting to running such a trial because “duh of course” but I disagree that it’s that simple.

          And yes beyond that there are of course issues with how to scale it up. Personally I don’t consider UBI to mean that 100% of the population gets income. As with the COVID stimulus checks, we should exempt the affluent.

    • Cryophilia@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      The problem as I see it is how to make it work as its own self-sustaining economic system.

      Wouldn’t that be a loan?