FinalJuggernaut_ t1_j3d8pv9 wrote on January 7, 2023 at 7:08 PM

Reply to comment by MiserableTonight5370 in I asked chatgpt to write a UN resolution in favor of universal basic income, and this is what it returned. by AnneBancroftsGhost

>The fact that you can't back up an over-broad negative claim is a clue that you should not make it. That's exactly my point.

I don't think so.

>Does discussing the economics of universal basic income require expertise at economics and all other types of expertise don't provide any credibility at all, or do you need to be a hammer-wielding bridge builder?

Discussing the economics of UBI requires very solid understanding of how the real world is working, and obtaining such knowledge without working in fields that physically create all the wealth is not possible.

>I'd wager that the number of economics PhDs that have sizeable construction experience is low enough that if we let only them discuss economic policy we'd have a pretty short discussion.

And this is one of the main causes of the weak state of the global economy.

> More directly, it feels like you're moving the goalposts though: you said that the people who came up with 'the idea' had no work experience or relevant education. You didn't say that they had no 'construction' experience or 'economics' education, you said work experience or relevant education.

Yeah, my bad, should've formulated it better.

>Someone with public policy education who works in government has both relevant education and relevant work experience to discuss the idea of public policy like UBI. If you disagree, I'd love to know what criteria exactly you were implying when you made your over-broad, negative, impossible to support claim.

Well, to be precise, everybody have a right to discuss ideas. The question is whose opinions should have more value that others.

In my opinion someone with public policy education who works in government is concerned by their career only. In my opinion government employees should not have a right to vote, let alone make decisions like these, also because they never bear any responsibility.

Criteria?

Hmmm.... Lemme see...

Intelligent humans that have experience either directly managing large masses of other humans or have studied human intelligence, human evolution and human history.

Oh, and no, no politicians and no gov. employees.

MiserableTonight5370 t1_j3dc65b wrote on January 7, 2023 at 7:31 PM

Well, your revised position is much more reasonable. Score one for discourse.

I still completely disagree with your insistence that making a claim you can't support well is a good idea. C'est la vie.

I think it would be better if only intelligent people made decisions for other people, but I have yet to hear any ethical, or maybe moral is the better word, ways to enforce any kind of such system in practice.

My last little quibble with your revised criteria is that there are very few types of management of large masses of people that can't be considered a form of government/politics. Seems like you're triangulating on the CEOs or owners of large companies. If that's the case, then I'll politely disagree with you - I would trust academics with less vested interest to provide more intelligent and more objective positions on economic policy. Important to note: I said LESS vested interest (than corporate magnates), not none at all. I would say that rank-and-file academia have less vested interest in economic policy than the average CEO, as an example.

Completely agree that politicians' opinions on economic policy are not worth repeating, much less forming one's own opinion on.

Edit: p3, 'little' => 'few'

FinalJuggernaut_ t1_j3dfrhx wrote on January 7, 2023 at 7:54 PM

>Well, your revised position is much more reasonable. Score one for discourse.

Cheers :)

>I still completely disagree with your insistence that making a claim you can't support well is a good idea. C'est la vie.

That's completely fine. I'm not upset XDXD

>I think it would be better if only intelligent people made decisions for other people, but I have yet to hear any ethical, or maybe moral is the better word, ways to enforce any kind of such system in practice.

Which is precisely the reason why I haven't mentioned morals or ethics.

>My last little quibble with your revised criteria is that there are very few types of management of large masses of people that can't be considered a form of government/politics. Seems like you're triangulating on the CEOs or owners of large companies. If that's the case, then I'll politely disagree with you - I would trust academics with less vested interest to provide more intelligent and more objective positions on economic policy. Important to note: I said LESS vested interest (than corporate magnates), not none at all. I would say that rank-and-file academia have less vested interest in economic policy than the average CEO, as an example.

Which is why I mentioned direct management. I should've clarified - people who know by name all who they manage. Owners of successful hitech startups (leave alone Musk - he's tad too big XDXD), operations managers in corporations and such.

Why do I tend to trust this kind of people? Because they tend to be very rational and they know people. Academia are too detached, they live in their academic world and tend to believe that everybody else is just like them, maybe less educated.

Also, academia is very interested in ensuring their own employment. Contrary to businessmen, who can just make money out of thin air, literally buying lemons and selling lemonade if there's nothing better, academia isn't really capable of surviving in the wild and depends on government donations.