
This is the most comprehensive, rigorous test of universal basic income to date - rdl
http://www.vox.com/2016/4/14/11410904/givedirectly-basic-income
======
maxharris
This is a flawed test. The primary focus of any evaluation of a political
system ought to be, "how would the best and brightest do under this system?"

Think of innovators, such as Ivan Sutherland, Seymour Cray, John Carmack, or
Palmer Luckey. You can quibble about exactly how much, but the fact is that
each of them would be hurt to one degree or another by a scheme like this,
which would leave them with fewer resources and less freedom to do what they
do best. Now think of the same effect, but applied to every field, not just
computer graphics (think medicine, energy, food production, etc.)

Before I continue, I should add that I don't consider everyone that happens to
be wealthy today to be a true creator. Clearly, there are people that have
amassed wealth the way Trump has done (via political pull.) But let's not lump
people that have actually earned their wealth (and there are clearly some)
with those that haven't.

Without Fritz Haber's nitrogen fixation powering 20th century agriculture, for
instance, there's no way Earth's population could have hit 7 billion people.
As a class, the people I'm talking about make it possible for the rest of the
world to live. They already carry us in ways we can never repay: we get to
live because of the innovations they come up with, and all they get back in
some cases is money and/or fame. I think it's a moral outrage to propose a
system that would cut them down in any degree.

