Really Bill? handicap the competition? So why didn’t you make Windows harder to use so that Linux would have had a shot.
UBI? So we’re just printing money and removing all incentive and meritocracy from society? And people call Trump a populist.
But I agree automation is a issue and despite what the nerds think it’s a socialist issue, not a technological issue. the issue Marx had was taht capitalism and the influence money has in capitalism reduces the value of labor therefor creating a imbalance of power between owners of wealth and the means of production. And I’ll stop it here because going further we get into political theory.
So the issue isn’t that workers can’t get money. Is that they have increasingly less power withing the institution. This is a continous thing, (thank you globalism) but that really needs to be adressed, because wage is the principle wealth outlet for most people. And the other is the stock market.
Now I know you socialists would cream your pants if all money would come from the government and we would just hang out and spend it, but that is not wealth, that is not added value. That is a import economy sustained by artificially limiting production, growth and prosperity. This is the reason planned economies look like time stopped. Any jump in costs of productions, innovation increases fixed costs that need to be distributed among a certain number of units sold.
In practice, this means that you do not get an iphone 23 until the number of iphone 22’s get sold at full production costs. This means that you do not get to eat avocados, until all the ripe avocados are done.
Planned economies make people very rich, almost over night, because there is nothing to counterbalance production with, there is no real cost, government makes it and it pays for it. It’s a closed circuit. But the issue is that new value doesn’t exist and you very fast reach a point where making new things is an unjustified effort.
I had an argument with someone that argued for socialized medicine using pediatric cancer as a moral justification.
Cancer treatment is so expensive to develop and the benefits is so low, that it would never be healed without rich assholes that spend millions on cancer research. In a planned economy, some objective bureaucrat gets to make the choice what you do with 1 billion dollars worth of research, do you cure infantile cancer and save 50 000 lives over the next 10 years or do you improve the life of 300 million over the same time span by curing migraines. And utilitarian morals would very easily sacrifice the few for the many.