Yes. The key thing is that when the dominant actors in the space start rent seeking, the government should be responsible to step in with a minimal cost good enough alternative.
We have collective action through violence already. We should strive for collective action without the violence.
Even the rent-seekers are better off, if we can figure it out, because they don't have to live in fear of being Brian Thompson-ed.
This is great point.
There should be a powerful collective owned provider run as a non profit for every basic need.
Innovators can still sell an improved more expensive option all they like.
Today's "Innovators" hate this because they aren't innovators, they're rent seekers.
Real innovators aren't afraid of competition.
As a fellow human, fuck our basic survival incentives. There are things corporations ask us to do where "death first!" is a reasonable answer.
We deserve better, and we can give it to ourselves and our children.
If you want to live near the beach and have awesome international touring bands come to your city... that shit is for the people who work for it.
UBI will work that way, in any case. There can't be enough free money to live in highly desired areas.
But there can be enough free money to live simply with some dignity.
Honestly, at first, UBI might only be enough to make living simply with dignity more accessible to more people. It would still be an improvement.
The wealth cap should be tied to a multiple of the UBI. A person or corporation wants to be allowed to get even richer? Then they can campaign to raise the UBI amount for everyone.
If, as they claim there's enough left to go around and they are paying enough taxes, then it'll be simple to raise the UBI amount.
You can just look up the information on the web, but how do you know whether to trust that information?
With open source, it's easy to get caught lying, or even just pushing on the boundaries of good ethics (cough Ubuntu cough).
If it's controversial, it is possible to verify the claims.
So gold is inflation-proof?
Yes, but only to the extent that you can store it, defend it and find a buyer when needed.
Gold loses value at exactly the rate of the cost of the armed guards you are paying to keep it from being stolen.
Pay too little, and it takes its value to someone else who is better armed or sneakier.
And if someone set aside gold for you that you have never seen, no they didn't.
I don't want to eat an intelligent creature!
It's okay. These dolphins spent all their money gambling.
Oh. Alright then.
I'm not saying. Nice try possibly Federal Internet cut-off clean-up assassin team!
Haha. I didn't say we should. I'm just pointing out that it's an option, again.
We could choose to believe that same folks who previously told us that cocaine, asbestos, lead, and tobacco smoke were ~~healthy~~ / ~~perfectly safe~~ / not really harmful.
"shortage"