> There was nothing "socialist" about Jamestown. Many of the initial settlers were aristocrats who had no experience of work, and no interest in it.
The parent's quote specifically proposed the notion of people not working. This doesn't disprove the argument or address the point about the structure of Jamestown's initial income distribution mechanism.
> We already have a culture like this. Those who believe they own an entirely imaginary thing called "money" believe they're entitled to live off the efforts who don't.
How are you defining work? Money is a proxy for value produced at some point in time and you can either save it or immediately spend it. If someone acquired a reserve of value, how are they living off the efforts of other people? They still must buy goods and services like everyone else.
The claim that Jamestown was "saved by capitalism" is the typical libertarian/conservative story touted out in discussions about socialism and capitalism.
The situation was a lot more nuanced than that. The setup of Jamestown as between the Crown and the investors, not the colonists, who were essentially indentured servants for 7 years. Also, the climate was not right for the types of crops the colonists were trying to grow, and as someone else mentioned, the settlers were not accustomed to the environment.
"How are you defining work? Money is a proxy for value produced at some point in time and you can either save it or immediately spend it. If someone acquired a reserve of value, how are they living off the efforts of other people? They still must buy goods and services like everyone else."
That's an incredibly naive response. I would venture the author of that comment is referring to CEO and bankers on Wall Street. For the amount these people are paid, it's hard to see how much value they are producing. There is definitely an entitlement mindset.
That's an incredibly frustrating response because it doesn't actually address anything substantive but simply attempts to cast dispersion on the arguments. I'll reiterate the request I made to a commentator below in the thread. Are there counter examples of a society working without incentive that allows people to work or not work and if so, why aren't they with us today / if they are, why aren't they more influential? I'm open to being proven incorrect in the course of a substantive discussion, however, I'm disinclined to change my views in the face of simple dispersion.
You're missing the point that incentives matter, pretty much every economist from the most socialist to the most libertarian agrees on that point. When you incentivize one activity, you're removing incentives somewhere else. I.E. if I cut the cost of junk food 1000% percent, I'm encouraging you to eat bad food because you can get more of it for less compared to healthy food. Comparably, if I incentivize not working that will reduce or remove the incentives to work.
> That's an incredibly naive response.
And that's a terrible response with no further substantiation of the position. What is the "not naive" view of money? Why is it a superior position to hold? Give me a reason to prefer. Simply telling me I'm being naive without substantiation or alternative is borderline ad hominem.
> For the amount these people are paid, it's hard to see how much value they are producing. There is definitely an entitlement mindset.
How are you defining value? In the case of your example, they're leading in and participating in multi-billion dollar companies and markets that people are giving money to in exchange for services indicating they provide some value to the end user. We can debate the merits of that value or the manner it's provided, but the fact that people are giving the companies money would indicate they're providing a good or service the people value.
First off, I mostly agree with your sentiments. This comment is not in opposition but made to extend the discussion even beyond just money.
In order for a universal basic income system to work, we'll probably need to ditch democracy or put into writing some difficult to change protections. Seeing that the Constitution is being treated as either a) a living breathing document whose meaning changes with time or b) just a piece of inconvenient paper, I don't see a feasible way of making a universal basic income system work (edit: along side a democracy).
What's basic and what are people minimally entitled to? I believe everyone should be provided a place to sleep. But I think that should consist of a cot in a cement dorm like room with shared bathrooms. Other's will want, or with time demand or think that they should be provided a house, with cable TV, a cell phone, etc... With democracy in place it only will take until 51% of people don't want to work until the system completely breaks and falls into havoc (at which point a tyrannic dictator often takes over).
"Democracy is nothing more than mob rule, where 51% of the people may take away the rights of the other 49%."
which will lead to:
"Democracy with a universal basic income will lead to 51% of the people voting to take away the wealth and productivity of the other 49%."
Why doesn't that happen now, then? The current majority could, right now, decide to massively increase the taxes on, say, the 40% richest and redistribute that money to the rest of the 60%.
In fact, the current majority can, right now, decide to implement UBI, and then do all those things you describe.
Essentially, it's a slippery slope argument, with no great explanation of why UBI would change the conditions to start the "slip" that hasn't occurred until now.
One might argue that a majority can not decide anything since it's not an agent, nor is the relative amount of people who share a specific opinion somehow relevant in most of contemporary politics.
Also taxation is not a one way route as it might backfire through tax avoidance or just collective time re-allocation.
I'd bet there is no single agent on any developed country either powerful enough or knowledgeable enough to implement the UBI as it will most likely require massive legal and political changes.
So I guess it's pretty obvious why no one implemented the UBI yet.
Edit: never mind. I guess I miss understood you. Sorry.^^
Because coming to a consensus of what amount or what should be provided and how to provide is very difficult. Also there are numerous people who still believe in a work ethnic that things are earned not given. The shrinking middle class hasn't thrown in the towel yet.
Fully removing incentives doesn't work, but I would claim you do need to make sure people avoid the poverty trap (and that's only part of it).
To respond to your other question, the classic example would be mortgage backed securities that were part of the housing crisis. They provided -some- value, but overall, they were nothing more than scheme to make money off people's payments and nonpayments of mortgages.
Also, CEO's, on average, make 300% of the average worker's salary. I'm not sure the average CEO is 300% more productive than an field worker or an engineer. They do have a hand in leading the organization, but honestly, most of that work is done by the people below them in the org chart.
> The situation was a lot more nuanced than that. The setup of Jamestown as between the Crown and the investors, not the colonists, who were essentially indentured servants for 7 years. Also, the climate was not right for the types of crops the colonists were trying to grow, and as someone else mentioned, the settlers were not accustomed to the environment.
I don't know anything about Jamestown, but... this kind of feels like you're giving more detail, but it's detail that doesn't really contradict the original narrative?
At any rate, I took the original narrative to be: originally the workers received the same amount of stuff regardless of how much they worked, and that went badly. Then the workers started to receive more for working harder, that went better. And your version seems to be consistent with that, even if there were other factors making things difficult for the colony. Like they're two different stories, set in the same universe but focused on different things. One is a history and one is a snapshot, and the snapshot adds more detail but doesn't mean the history is wrong.
That's the impression I'm getting of the two narratives here. I remain ignorant of the actual facts.
While I personally cannot attest to the validity of these sources, it paints a more realistic picture of what happened. The colony's failure was not due to socialism, but to poor planning and expectations.
What I notice about those sources is that the original story in this thread
> They initially established it in a "socialist" vein wherein everyone received an equal share of the proceeds (food, etc) regardless of their contributions to the colony. ... [Later] they lifted the socialist mandate on redistribution
seems to not be retold in them. (I only skimmed, so perhaps I missed something?)
So, I guess: if that story is true, then those sources still don't contradict it. They add relevant detail, but if the story did happen as told, then it's still evidence that the "socialist" model worked less well than the "capitalist" model. It's somewhat surprising that those sources don't mention the two models tried. (In this case, I expect the "capitalist" model corresponds to 1619 onwards, "individual land ownership was also instituted". The first source doesn't cover this time period at all.)
And if that story is false, then the correct reply seems to be "um, that's not what happened" rather than "here's more detail".
It's well known that, once you acquire enough money, you can live off the proceeds of that money. If you inherited a million dollars and put it in bog-standard funds, you'd get ~$75,000 a year for doing absolutely nothing. How that factors into your theory, I'd love to know.
In (at least) two ways. One, you'd be lending wealth to other people so that they can create more wealth. Without your investment, less wealth would be created. Two, your parents acquired money by producing wealth, and one of the things that they chose to spend that money on was their progeny.
(NB. This does not claim that the allocation of money for value produced is perfectly fair, or just, or economically optimal, or whatever.)
Not the OP but your assumption is that 1. That "investment" mechanism will hold up forever and 2. That you don't put that money in the system at the wrong time assuming it is a random walk.
You're being rather argumentative, don't you think? Did you have something worth elaborating with the bit about the random walk? I would still be curious to know.
The parent's quote specifically proposed the notion of people not working. This doesn't disprove the argument or address the point about the structure of Jamestown's initial income distribution mechanism.
> We already have a culture like this. Those who believe they own an entirely imaginary thing called "money" believe they're entitled to live off the efforts who don't.
How are you defining work? Money is a proxy for value produced at some point in time and you can either save it or immediately spend it. If someone acquired a reserve of value, how are they living off the efforts of other people? They still must buy goods and services like everyone else.