How can I justify being both very in favour of the free market, while at the same time being in favour of a universal basic income? Aren't those mutually exclusive?
>>74106808
>favour of a universal basic income?
>favour
dour
flour
hour
sour
colour
doesn't quite add up, does it?
>>74106808
Literally no relation. What's with retards changing the definition of free trade to whatever cronyists like?
>>74107066
>being this stupid
>>74106808
they can work together.
you have a free market, and then maybe like a 10% transaction tax, along with nationalized production industries that give enough money to survive, and then a little extra to influence the market by consuming.
No retard welfare shit though. People who actually produce wealth deserve to have much more of an influence on the market. Otherwise you get shit like Keeping up with the Kardashians and Chef Boyardee
>>74107265
a fucking LEAF
>>74107399
What does a reality TV show have to do with it?
>>74107520
Or, more precisely, un lœvre
>>74106808
It's not time for UBI. We need more automation first. I don't really believe the fucks that say computers won't permanently kill swaths of lows skill and mid skill jobs to the point those people can't work.
We could just turn them all into bullet sponges.
>>74107569
retards with too much spending power.
The free market naturally gives more cultural sway to the rich and/or intelligent
social democracy gives every retard an equal say.
I'm in favor of UBI eventually, but not total equality.
>>74108286
So having a TV show that gets ~2mln viewers on average is being a retard?
Being entertaining, even the the lowest common denominator is still a valuable skill
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Keeping_Up_with_the_Kardashians_episodes (viewership numbers)
If every retard has a equal say why don't you have a shitty TV show
>>74109287
I'm saying that the most intelligent should have the most money to influence the market.
The poorest and most incompetent should have just enough to survive, so they don't spend money on stupid shit, and convince the wealthy to produce stupid shit.
I'm not saying the producers of Kardashians are dumb, they're incredibly good salesman. I'm saying the consumers are dumb.
No. Hayek favored simple redistribution. UBI is goat socialism because there's no government waste and pointless bullshit programs.
It's 100% return on its intended purpose of making poor people less poor.
>>74106808
No.
Milton Freidman supported both.
Fiscal policy is different from market policy
>>74109549
Good point. But I wouldn't consider it socialism, just welfare.
socialism is just a question of who controls capital.
You can have welfare in capitalist systems, just like you can have markets in socialist systems.
