Comment on What's the endgame when the rich have all the money?
__matthew__@lemmy.world 2 days agoHmm, if you’re interested in expanding further I’d love you to share more detail. What specifically in the scenario I proposed would require foresight?
I suppose you could say the government passing some form of increased welfare could require foresight but even that is primarily reactionary (a reaction to the public unrest from record rates of unemployment and poverty). If you look at the civilian unemployment rate, it’s quite low right now, around 5%. In the worst of times, it’s been 10-15% during which there were huge pushes for the government to step in (ie. covid relief / 2008 financial reforms). That makes me think it’d be only reasonable that if we experienced sustained high (15%+) unemployment it’s quite reasonable to predict that there’d be enough pressure for the government to provide some significant form of relief.
If anything, my pessimism would stem from social unrest due to the polarization of media, the hyper optimization of content, and similar negative byproducts of capitalism plus advanced optimization. But I view these all as distinct problems separate from the problems discussed here (the economic conditions induced by late-stage capitalism).
TrickDacy@lemmy.world 2 days ago
The kind of foresight I meant is just seeing that something bad can happen but maybe it can be stopped. We’ve been sprinting toward climate catastrophe for decades now. There’s almost zero chance most of those in power don’t know they’re doing that.
Is there any precedent for any country on earth instituting a long term basic income program? I honestly think the pieces of shit in power in America as of this month would rather watch the entire world burn down than do something like that. Trump might prefer having his penis cut off than doing it. So yeah, even if there’s precedent for something like that, you need someone in power that employs logic more consistently than what we’ve seen for a while.