<![CDATA[OMG this: "The paper is essentially a mathematical proof that a world with universal basic income is more meritocratic than a world without one, because luck-based distribution — which is what we have now — throws away most of the talent in the room."]]>OMG this: "The paper is essentially a mathematical proof that a world with universal basic income is more meritocratic than a world without one, because luck-based distribution — which is what we have now — throws away most of the talent in the room."

https://www.scottsantens.com/the-angine-de-poitrine-argument-for-ubi/

]]>https://forum.fedi.dk/topic/c21bb075-e173-4125-84a2-b759abfaae06/omg-this-the-paper-is-essentially-a-mathematical-proof-that-a-world-with-universal-basic-income-is-more-meritocratic-than-a-world-without-one-because-luck-based-distribution-which-is-what-we-have-now-throws-away-most-of-the-talent-in-the-room.RSS for NodeThu, 30 Apr 2026 16:14:40 GMTTue, 28 Apr 2026 19:55:14 GMT60<![CDATA[Reply to OMG this: "The paper is essentially a mathematical proof that a world with universal basic income is more meritocratic than a world without one, because luck-based distribution — which is what we have now — throws away most of the talent in the room." on Tue, 28 Apr 2026 20:38:08 GMT]]>@reasie @jvw Just wait until this author learns about bike lanes…

Edit: I feel like this was too flippant and warrants connecting some dots. My point is that governments do not spend rationally. There are many interventions that have been proven to give back many times more than the cost in benefits, and yet governments don’t do it. Bike lanes are a kind of famous one of these.

]]>https://forum.fedi.dk/post/https://chaosfem.tw/users/what/statuses/116484255790579033https://forum.fedi.dk/post/https://chaosfem.tw/users/what/statuses/116484255790579033Tue, 28 Apr 2026 20:38:08 GMT