LogFAQs > #902250441

This is fine though. It's what capitalism is made for. That being said it has to be done sustainably and allow for downturns and such, unlike keynesianism.

It'll be a harder sell each time though. Right now, a whole lot of claims about the need for re-distribution are commie and SJW stuff about the legacy of oppression and the unfairness of inheritance or whatever. That we need re-distribution to correct injustices of the distant past.

Well, let's say we do that. We institute a super high UBI that everyone gets and for some time, everyone feels reasonably happy and prosperous.

But then, years or decades later, suddenly that's not the case anymore. The people who spent their UBI solely on consumption and stopped contributing to society feel super poor again, because the people who invested their UBI and continued to work hard and engage in productive labor got a lot richer and can suddenly afford new luxuries that didn't even exist before.

It'll be a lot harder to blame that inequality on "the legacy of slavery" or whatever. It will be painfully obvious to everyone who used their UBI to do productive things, and who used it on strippers and coke. And the people who used it well will be even less inclined than they already are to listen to the whining of the unproductive class.

The argument of "I'm poor because my ancestors were oppressed" is at least somewhat plausible. But the more re-distribution you do, the less plausible it becomes.
---

SmartMuffin - Because anything less would be uncivilized - https://imgur.com/W66HUUy
http://dudewheresmyfreedom.com/