Friam

The case for universal basic income UBI

Classic

List

Threaded

124 messages Options

12345 ... 7

jon zingale

Re: The case for universal basic income UBI

or a BIC?

Hopefully, without bending an otherwise interesting thread, I will hint at
what IMO might be a serious response to your troll. I was thinking about the
rhizomatic nature of both category theory and semiotics. In both the first
case, a la the Lawverian approach to foundations, and in the second case,
following Peirce, the basic assumption is that "We must start in the
middle". But, why exactly is this so? Why is it taken almost as an axiom for
rhizomatic theories? To some extent, I would argue that both categories and
(historically) systems of signs begin with the assumption of crisp objects.
The game afterward is then to understand, (co-)extensionally, the objects
relative to one another through morphisms in the former or signifiers in the
latter. Transformations of objects, then, are understood as transitions
between objects in an apriori given (though perhaps implied) algebra of
parts. Of course, and to some extent I would like to think that this is what
a term like rupture exists to imply, it is possible to not assume crisp
objects but rather a proto-objective substrate (plane of immanence or some
other cosmic source of randomness) whence come objects. Neither position, to
my mind, ought to be any more privileged (up to productive inquiry) and
certainly should not be taken as the only possibilities for a framework.

--
Sent from: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/

- .... . -..-. . -. -.. -..-. .. ... -..-. .... . .-. .
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6 bit.ly/virtualfriam
un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/
archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/

Frank Wimberly-2

Re: The case for universal basic income UBI

In reply to this post by gepr

A couple of facts that relate to some of the points raised.

I was following a car that had a bumper sticker that said, "Eat the Rich".

A man paid $50 million for a penthouse (5 story) in Manhattan. He committed suicide when he couldn't sell it for $35 million. His wife wanted to live where she could have horses. If anyone cares i can tell you who he was.

---
Frank C. Wimberly
140 Calle Ojo Feliz,
Santa Fe, NM 87505

505 670-9918
Santa Fe, NM

On Tue, May 4, 2021, 3:42 PM uǝlƃ ↙↙↙ <[hidden email]> wrote:

Yeah, I agree. But as the miscommunication about the dimension of simplices vs. orthogonal dimensionality seems to indicate, reduction need not imply linearity, and if reduction is used iteratively to discover interestingness, that provenance/method/algorithm need not be lost (1st order Markovian). A practical example might be https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Projection_pursuit

Like abstraction <-> concretization, there's de-objectification that's part of a complete skill set. Competent objectifiers retain enough history to at least approximate the starting point.

On 5/4/21 1:37 PM, jon zingale wrote:
> """
> Reduction is a triumph if it captures what you're looking for.
> """
>
> When reductions capture what one is looking for then the resulting
> categories
> make for powerful rhetoric. IMO, it is exactly that reductions to crisp
> objects
> capture what *some* want, while obfuscating the desired objects of others,
> that
> makes the whole reduction-objectification game so insidious in practice (a
> kind
> of conceptual imperialism?). Sometimes objects can be presented with such
> clarity
> and precision that it becomes difficult to imagine any others, to dislodge
> unproductive beliefs or practices, or to remember that the objects are
> fantastic
> shorthands.

--
↙↙↙ uǝlƃ

- .... . -..-. . -. -.. -..-. .. ... -..-. .... . .-. .
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6 bit.ly/virtualfriam
un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/
archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/

- .... . -..-. . -. -.. -..-. .. ... -..-. .... . .-. .
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6 bit.ly/virtualfriam
un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/
archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/

Gillian Densmore

Re: The case for universal basic income UBI

The simplest case for a UBI is current and past pandemics. Simply put that for some asinine reason our sense of maslow's hierarchy of needs has gone tits up fucked.

On Tue, May 4, 2021 at 5:23 PM Frank Wimberly <[hidden email]> wrote:

A couple of facts that relate to some of the points raised.

I was following a car that had a bumper sticker that said, "Eat the Rich".

A man paid $50 million for a penthouse (5 story) in Manhattan. He committed suicide when he couldn't sell it for $35 million. His wife wanted to live where she could have horses. If anyone cares i can tell you who he was.

---
Frank C. Wimberly
140 Calle Ojo Feliz,
Santa Fe, NM 87505

505 670-9918
Santa Fe, NM

On Tue, May 4, 2021, 3:42 PM uǝlƃ ↙↙↙ <[hidden email]> wrote:
Yeah, I agree. But as the miscommunication about the dimension of simplices vs. orthogonal dimensionality seems to indicate, reduction need not imply linearity, and if reduction is used iteratively to discover interestingness, that provenance/method/algorithm need not be lost (1st order Markovian). A practical example might be https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Projection_pursuit

Like abstraction <-> concretization, there's de-objectification that's part of a complete skill set. Competent objectifiers retain enough history to at least approximate the starting point.

On 5/4/21 1:37 PM, jon zingale wrote:
> """
> Reduction is a triumph if it captures what you're looking for.
> """
>
> When reductions capture what one is looking for then the resulting
> categories
> make for powerful rhetoric. IMO, it is exactly that reductions to crisp
> objects
> capture what *some* want, while obfuscating the desired objects of others,
> that
> makes the whole reduction-objectification game so insidious in practice (a
> kind
> of conceptual imperialism?). Sometimes objects can be presented with such
> clarity
> and precision that it becomes difficult to imagine any others, to dislodge
> unproductive beliefs or practices, or to remember that the objects are
> fantastic
> shorthands.

--
↙↙↙ uǝlƃ

- .... . -..-. . -. -.. -..-. .. ... -..-. .... . .-. .
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6 bit.ly/virtualfriam
un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/
archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/

- .... . -..-. . -. -.. -..-. .. ... -..-. .... . .-. .
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6 bit.ly/virtualfriam
un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/
archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/

Gillian Densmore

Re: The case for universal basic income UBI

We have a globe getting pimp slapped by a virus. People getting shit canned for no other reason than breathing. WAstate and one other was/is back to full lockdown, Canada still is.

The question isn't reely is UBI a good/bad idea but how fucking fast do we make it happen? and for how much. I'd submit that a UBI musti be at 70k a year min, and tied to the trust costs of living and inflation. That's 30 an hour and the low end of 'upper middle clast' from the 80s. Plus a bit for savings and fun.

Probably should be pegged at the true costs of living for the most expensive place in the US to live, for a house hold of 3. So that a lot of people are covered. Because as is how many people are paycheck to paycheck for no other reason than luck? a lot. between lobyests, a fucking toxic why should we mediacrity penny ante mentality min wage was and is still contorted to the least we can legall get away with. We call that wage-slavery. So good chance that someone who gets a 5k a month check would then be able to pay off debts. Invest in some stocks and themselves. IMO that sounds fucking amazing to me.

San Franciscos costs of living, true costs of living waaay the F back in the 90s was 80k a year. it's now about 200k. As reported by any source thats reputable, and yet wages their haven't gone up more than 9.75-12 an hour. A single room BRM appartment their at 15% bellow average market rate can easily average 2k a month.

As it is now a single person just would not be able to afford that.

Ergo UBI would keep them housed.

Some massively large percent of the 30+ generation right now can't even save,, have to work 2+ jobs. Go make conversation with anyone at Smiths. a lot of those people have to work 3 jobs. Why should UBI be a question? the reel question must be not if, but when, and how much.

On Tue, May 4, 2021 at 5:27 PM Gillian Densmore <[hidden email]> wrote:

The simplest case for a UBI is current and past pandemics. Simply put that for some asinine reason our sense of maslow's hierarchy of needs has gone tits up fucked.

On Tue, May 4, 2021 at 5:23 PM Frank Wimberly <[hidden email]> wrote:
A couple of facts that relate to some of the points raised.

I was following a car that had a bumper sticker that said, "Eat the Rich".

A man paid $50 million for a penthouse (5 story) in Manhattan. He committed suicide when he couldn't sell it for $35 million. His wife wanted to live where she could have horses. If anyone cares i can tell you who he was.

---
Frank C. Wimberly
140 Calle Ojo Feliz,
Santa Fe, NM 87505

505 670-9918
Santa Fe, NM

On Tue, May 4, 2021, 3:42 PM uǝlƃ ↙↙↙ <[hidden email]> wrote:
Yeah, I agree. But as the miscommunication about the dimension of simplices vs. orthogonal dimensionality seems to indicate, reduction need not imply linearity, and if reduction is used iteratively to discover interestingness, that provenance/method/algorithm need not be lost (1st order Markovian). A practical example might be https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Projection_pursuit

Like abstraction <-> concretization, there's de-objectification that's part of a complete skill set. Competent objectifiers retain enough history to at least approximate the starting point.

On 5/4/21 1:37 PM, jon zingale wrote:
> """
> Reduction is a triumph if it captures what you're looking for.
> """
>
> When reductions capture what one is looking for then the resulting
> categories
> make for powerful rhetoric. IMO, it is exactly that reductions to crisp
> objects
> capture what *some* want, while obfuscating the desired objects of others,
> that
> makes the whole reduction-objectification game so insidious in practice (a
> kind
> of conceptual imperialism?). Sometimes objects can be presented with such
> clarity
> and precision that it becomes difficult to imagine any others, to dislodge
> unproductive beliefs or practices, or to remember that the objects are
> fantastic
> shorthands.

--
↙↙↙ uǝlƃ

- .... . -..-. . -. -.. -..-. .. ... -..-. .... . .-. .
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6 bit.ly/virtualfriam
un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/
archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/

- .... . -..-. . -. -.. -..-. .. ... -..-. .... . .-. .
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6 bit.ly/virtualfriam
un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/
archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/

Steve Smith

Re: The case for universal basic income UBI

In reply to this post by Frank Wimberly-2

I was following a car that had a bumper sticker that said, "Eat the Rich".

I do understand that some of them are well marbled.

Prof David West

Re: The case for universal basic income UBI

In reply to this post by Steve Smith

Diamond Age: Or, A Young Woman's Illustrated Primer by Neal Stephenson

Required reading for any discussion of economics when the robots produce abundance, or things are too cheap to meter.

Nick won'ty read, pretty sure Steve and other already have.

davew

On Tue, May 4, 2021, at 3:31 PM, Steve Smith wrote:

> I'm glad I held back from throwing in my own $.002 on this topic

> earlier... I like the general arc it is on and is being articulated much

> more gesturally than I think I am capable of. I can't say I *fully*

> follow Glen's use of reduction and reconstruction in technical detail

> well, but it suggests an abstraction that rings hopeful if not

> (necessarily) true for me.

> Given that my trite belief that "when the road hazards are coming at us

> faster than we can see much less avoid, that we should pump the brakes

> and downshift" is based in an inapt (inept?) metaphor, and that in any

> case we aren't going to do a whole lot of self-limiting under the

> current aesthetic we (mostly) share (pedal to the metal and let 'er

> roar!).

> The Prepper/Survivalist community is mostly about trying to gather up

> the resources they think will help them survive a crash or more

> importantly the aftermath. The post/transhumanists seem to be trying

> to figure out how to strapon (or grow out of their own bodies') wings

> and jet packs and road armor to escape or survive the inevitable crash.

> Careening vehicle metaphors aside, I'm pleased to hear more and more

> discussion that frames the economic aspect of "the culture war" as

> *post* rather than *anti* capitalism. Whether technology makes

> *everything* too cheap to meter or not, I think the relative abundance

> of manufactured goods as well as commodities for the top 50% of the

> first world is confronting the *scarcity* model that was (maybe?)

> necessary to keep the engine (oops, vehicles made it back in) of

> consumerist markets accelerating.

> I am not sure that Yang has all (or even many) of the answers but I do

> give him great credit for having promoted the question on the national

> (and world?) stage with his run for President. I had thought about UBI

> and similar mechanisms before but somehow his presentation or affect or

> maybe just timing brought it to me in a much more compelling way than

> before.

> I very much appreciate Glen's point about UBI being an intrinsically

> capitalist proposal to try to keep their system going as long as

> possible, I just hope we will use whatever time that buys us without

> significant disruption to plan out what things might/could look like on

> the other side of a revolution in (socioeconomic?) thinking that now

> seem inevitable to me. When I used to ski (poorly), on any given run,

> there was likely a brief period of time when I realized I as absolutely

> going to crash and burn, and if I had any choice in the matter it was

> whether I was going to do it earlier rather than later and whether I was

> going to take a big bite of ice-slicked mogul, some off-run powder, or

> maybe a tree. Maybe I'll just leap off a mogul and evaporate in the

> sunlight mid-air (Kurzweil's Singularity)?

> - Steve

> On 5/4/21 12:52 PM, uǝlƃ ↙↙↙ wrote:

> > Reduction. All things in moderation, including moderation. Reduction is a triumph, if it captures what you're looking for. And fiat currency has done great things for the world, a cultural technology that allows us to explore possibilities we wouldn't have otherwise explored. Financial instruments have allowed us to spread ownership across demographics that would never have been allowed based on real property.

> >

> > But those instruments are a reconstruction of the space that currency reduced out. And I think we're seeing that the reconstruction is trending dysfunctional. So, it's time to reconsider the initial reduction and, importantly, why the reconstruction isn't a cover for the original (full) space.

> >

> > We are doing that in both ad-hoc ways (e.g. the Psychology today article, finding other dimensions by which to bolster the reduction) and fundamental ways (e.g. transhumanist experimentation of "what are we"). UBI is a reasonable suggestion to reduce suffering. But, ultimately, it's a capitalist suggestion, proposed by *conservatives* who want to prolong the status quo, to milk the current system for as long as they can. That's OK, of course. We try to balance exploitation with exploration and nobody knows crisply when to emphasize which.

> >

> > On 5/4/21 11:16 AM, [hidden email] wrote:

> >> Ah, now THIS is the Glen I know and love. Your 10:00 post rekindled old rage concerning the incentive-value of money. Here I go. Up on my high horse. Hi, Ho, Silver. Budda bump, budda bump, budda bump, bump, bump.

> >>

> >> The very little Marxism I know tells me that it is the "triumph" of capitalism to reduce all relationships to money. This seems right to rich people because the richer you get, the truer it becomes. I can imagine Besos, Gates, and Musk falling asleep at night, musing about which of them will first reach a trillion. If you've lost your soul and you've lost your wife, what else could they possibly want. Such people even turn women into a kind of coinage. (Cue Waspish Moral Outrage). But isn't that the point of UBI; that it frees people to think about something else? And yes, what IS this so-called "productivity"? The "happy ditch digger" and the "carefree slave" are all part of the same self-serving capitalist iconography. I am sure there are people who love to dig ditches, but if that's what they love to do, give them a thousand dollars a month for free and let them dig ditches for Habitat for Humanity in Peru, if that's what they feel like doing.

> >>

> >> Glen, keeping your ad hominem firmly in mind, I am again going to use your post as opportunity to flog my old work which argues that it is capitalism's reduction of all ambition to coinage that makes it so toxic.

> - .... . -..-. . -. -.. -..-. .. ... -..-. .... . .-. .

> FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv

> Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6 bit.ly/virtualfriam

> un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com

> FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/

> archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/

jon zingale

Re: The case for universal basic income UBI

I remember listening to "Diamond Age" as a book on tape while driving up the
California 1, it was 10 or 12 tapes and the woman who read it did an amazing
job. What a wonderful book. There have been a few books in my life that I
feel have found me like the illustrated primer found Nell, a book that
connects with you before it advises you to start running and not look back.

--
Sent from: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/

- .... . -..-. . -. -.. -..-. .. ... -..-. .... . .-. .
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6 bit.ly/virtualfriam
un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/
archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/

Gary Schiltz-4

Re: The case for universal basic income UBI

In reply to this post by Gillian Densmore

It's hard to imagine UBI in the United States, when you (we, before I left) can't even get a universal health care system.

On Tue, May 4, 2021 at 6:47 PM Gillian Densmore <[hidden email]> wrote:

We have a globe getting pimp slapped by a virus. People getting shit canned for no other reason than breathing. WAstate and one other was/is back to full lockdown, Canada still is.
The question isn't reely is UBI a good/bad idea but how fucking fast do we make it happen? and for how much. I'd submit that a UBI musti be at 70k a year min, and tied to the trust costs of living and inflation. That's 30 an hour and the low end of 'upper middle clast' from the 80s. Plus a bit for savings and fun.

Probably should be pegged at the true costs of living for the most expensive place in the US to live, for a house hold of 3. So that a lot of people are covered. Because as is how many people are paycheck to paycheck for no other reason than luck? a lot. between lobyests, a fucking toxic why should we mediacrity penny ante mentality min wage was and is still contorted to the least we can legall get away with. We call that wage-slavery. So good chance that someone who gets a 5k a month check would then be able to pay off debts. Invest in some stocks and themselves. IMO that sounds fucking amazing to me.
San Franciscos costs of living, true costs of living waaay the F back in the 90s was 80k a year. it's now about 200k. As reported by any source thats reputable, and yet wages their haven't gone up more than 9.75-12 an hour. A single room BRM appartment their at 15% bellow average market rate can easily average 2k a month.
As it is now a single person just would not be able to afford that.
Ergo UBI would keep them housed.

Some massively large percent of the 30+ generation right now can't even save,, have to work 2+ jobs. Go make conversation with anyone at Smiths. a lot of those people have to work 3 jobs. Why should UBI be a question? the reel question must be not if, but when, and how much.

On Tue, May 4, 2021 at 5:27 PM Gillian Densmore <[hidden email]> wrote:
The simplest case for a UBI is current and past pandemics. Simply put that for some asinine reason our sense of maslow's hierarchy of needs has gone tits up fucked.

On Tue, May 4, 2021 at 5:23 PM Frank Wimberly <[hidden email]> wrote:
A couple of facts that relate to some of the points raised.

I was following a car that had a bumper sticker that said, "Eat the Rich".

A man paid $50 million for a penthouse (5 story) in Manhattan. He committed suicide when he couldn't sell it for $35 million. His wife wanted to live where she could have horses. If anyone cares i can tell you who he was.

---
Frank C. Wimberly
140 Calle Ojo Feliz,
Santa Fe, NM 87505

505 670-9918
Santa Fe, NM

On Tue, May 4, 2021, 3:42 PM uǝlƃ ↙↙↙ <[hidden email]> wrote:
Yeah, I agree. But as the miscommunication about the dimension of simplices vs. orthogonal dimensionality seems to indicate, reduction need not imply linearity, and if reduction is used iteratively to discover interestingness, that provenance/method/algorithm need not be lost (1st order Markovian). A practical example might be https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Projection_pursuit

Like abstraction <-> concretization, there's de-objectification that's part of a complete skill set. Competent objectifiers retain enough history to at least approximate the starting point.

On 5/4/21 1:37 PM, jon zingale wrote:
> """
> Reduction is a triumph if it captures what you're looking for.
> """
>
> When reductions capture what one is looking for then the resulting
> categories
> make for powerful rhetoric. IMO, it is exactly that reductions to crisp
> objects
> capture what *some* want, while obfuscating the desired objects of others,
> that
> makes the whole reduction-objectification game so insidious in practice (a
> kind
> of conceptual imperialism?). Sometimes objects can be presented with such
> clarity
> and precision that it becomes difficult to imagine any others, to dislodge
> unproductive beliefs or practices, or to remember that the objects are
> fantastic
> shorthands.

--
↙↙↙ uǝlƃ

- .... . -..-. . -. -.. -..-. .. ... -..-. .... . .-. .
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6 bit.ly/virtualfriam
un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/
archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/

- .... . -..-. . -. -.. -..-. .. ... -..-. .... . .-. .
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6 bit.ly/virtualfriam
un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/
archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/

- .... . -..-. . -. -.. -..-. .. ... -..-. .... . .-. .
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6 bit.ly/virtualfriam
un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/
archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/

Gillian Densmore

Re: The case for universal basic income UBI

Well we can imagine both. Problem is actually getting either one.

On Tue, May 4, 2021 at 9:05 PM Gary Schiltz <[hidden email]> wrote:

It's hard to imagine UBI in the United States, when you (we, before I left) can't even get a universal health care system.

On Tue, May 4, 2021 at 6:47 PM Gillian Densmore <[hidden email]> wrote:
We have a globe getting pimp slapped by a virus. People getting shit canned for no other reason than breathing. WAstate and one other was/is back to full lockdown, Canada still is.
The question isn't reely is UBI a good/bad idea but how fucking fast do we make it happen? and for how much. I'd submit that a UBI musti be at 70k a year min, and tied to the trust costs of living and inflation. That's 30 an hour and the low end of 'upper middle clast' from the 80s. Plus a bit for savings and fun.

Probably should be pegged at the true costs of living for the most expensive place in the US to live, for a house hold of 3. So that a lot of people are covered. Because as is how many people are paycheck to paycheck for no other reason than luck? a lot. between lobyests, a fucking toxic why should we mediacrity penny ante mentality min wage was and is still contorted to the least we can legall get away with. We call that wage-slavery. So good chance that someone who gets a 5k a month check would then be able to pay off debts. Invest in some stocks and themselves. IMO that sounds fucking amazing to me.
San Franciscos costs of living, true costs of living waaay the F back in the 90s was 80k a year. it's now about 200k. As reported by any source thats reputable, and yet wages their haven't gone up more than 9.75-12 an hour. A single room BRM appartment their at 15% bellow average market rate can easily average 2k a month.
As it is now a single person just would not be able to afford that.
Ergo UBI would keep them housed.

Some massively large percent of the 30+ generation right now can't even save,, have to work 2+ jobs. Go make conversation with anyone at Smiths. a lot of those people have to work 3 jobs. Why should UBI be a question? the reel question must be not if, but when, and how much.

On Tue, May 4, 2021 at 5:27 PM Gillian Densmore <[hidden email]> wrote:
The simplest case for a UBI is current and past pandemics. Simply put that for some asinine reason our sense of maslow's hierarchy of needs has gone tits up fucked.

On Tue, May 4, 2021 at 5:23 PM Frank Wimberly <[hidden email]> wrote:
A couple of facts that relate to some of the points raised.

I was following a car that had a bumper sticker that said, "Eat the Rich".

A man paid $50 million for a penthouse (5 story) in Manhattan. He committed suicide when he couldn't sell it for $35 million. His wife wanted to live where she could have horses. If anyone cares i can tell you who he was.

---
Frank C. Wimberly
140 Calle Ojo Feliz,
Santa Fe, NM 87505

505 670-9918
Santa Fe, NM

On Tue, May 4, 2021, 3:42 PM uǝlƃ ↙↙↙ <[hidden email]> wrote:
Yeah, I agree. But as the miscommunication about the dimension of simplices vs. orthogonal dimensionality seems to indicate, reduction need not imply linearity, and if reduction is used iteratively to discover interestingness, that provenance/method/algorithm need not be lost (1st order Markovian). A practical example might be https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Projection_pursuit

Like abstraction <-> concretization, there's de-objectification that's part of a complete skill set. Competent objectifiers retain enough history to at least approximate the starting point.

On 5/4/21 1:37 PM, jon zingale wrote:
> """
> Reduction is a triumph if it captures what you're looking for.
> """
>
> When reductions capture what one is looking for then the resulting
> categories
> make for powerful rhetoric. IMO, it is exactly that reductions to crisp
> objects
> capture what *some* want, while obfuscating the desired objects of others,
> that
> makes the whole reduction-objectification game so insidious in practice (a
> kind
> of conceptual imperialism?). Sometimes objects can be presented with such
> clarity
> and precision that it becomes difficult to imagine any others, to dislodge
> unproductive beliefs or practices, or to remember that the objects are
> fantastic
> shorthands.

--
↙↙↙ uǝlƃ

- .... . -..-. . -. -.. -..-. .. ... -..-. .... . .-. .
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6 bit.ly/virtualfriam
un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/
archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/

- .... . -..-. . -. -.. -..-. .. ... -..-. .... . .-. .
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6 bit.ly/virtualfriam
un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/
archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/

- .... . -..-. . -. -.. -..-. .. ... -..-. .... . .-. .
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6 bit.ly/virtualfriam
un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/
archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/

- .... . -..-. . -. -.. -..-. .. ... -..-. .... . .-. .
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6 bit.ly/virtualfriam
un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/
archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/

Steve Smith

Re: The case for universal basic income UBI

In reply to this post by jon zingale

I also consumed DA on tape/CD and appreciated the reader as well, but a
decade after it was written.   I read it (on paper) when it came out,
mostly following up his Snow Crash which I did not discover until just
as Diamond Age came out.   I was previously introduced to him via his
eco-thriller Zodiac (the first of the genre for me) not long before
that.   His work since then has been epic and in some ways amazing but I
don't feel it really matches those early works...   I believe he
followed on Cormac McCarthy's heels as SFI's "writer in residence" but
apparently has not really been "in residence" in the usual sense?

Regarding DaveW's implication/assertion about the story providing a good
post-abundance image to consider I heartily agree.   I was also moved
(re Jon's comment) by the way the human-in-the loop 'ractor
(under-employed actor working inter-actives in a gig economy) bonded
with her "client" in a completely anonymous context. Stephenson did
some amazing forecasting of many of the implications of ubiquitous
networking.   His nanotech prophecies are still a few decades away I
suspect but he is such a master of 'casting utopian/dystopian tensions
that I *want* to believe much of what he put out there for us.

> I remember listening to "Diamond Age" as a book on tape while driving up the
> California 1, it was 10 or 12 tapes and the woman who read it did an amazing
> job. What a wonderful book. There have been a few books in my life that I
> feel have found me like the illustrated primer found Nell, a book that
> connects with you before it advises you to start running and not look back.
>
>
>
> --
> Sent from: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/
>
> - .... . -..-. . -. -.. -..-. .. ... -..-. .... . .-. .
> FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
> Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6 bit.ly/virtualfriam
> un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
> FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/
> archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/

thompnickson2

Re: The case for universal basic income UBI

In reply to this post by Prof David West

Dave,

No you can’t have read it. Otherwise your life would have been completely transformed because you would have come to belief that sex- and mone- seeking are pathological distortions of human ambition.

I pretty sure nobody has read it because, so far as I know, nobody has been thus affected. Ergo, …

Nick

Nick Thompson

[hidden email]

https://wordpress.clarku.edu/nthompson/

From: Friam <[hidden email]> On Behalf Of Prof David West
Sent: Tuesday, May 4, 2021 8:45 PM
To: [hidden email]
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] The case for universal basic income UBI