If their art doesn’t make enough money then it’s clearly not in enough demand. It sucks but thats how things work. Only a small number of artists can ever coexist at the same time.
I mean, I’m sure the people who painted their hands in caves were doing all kinds of things. i.e. they had “jobs” even if those jobs were compensated for by something other than money.
Yeah but like… That’s also true of capitalism. Grain can still paint from his desire to paint. Grain just goes and does a job instead of hunting because that’s how he and his fellow humans will be able to eat later or get other services that they want/need. If Grain is good enough, Grain doesn’t need to hunt at all because Grain trades art for food.
Hobbyist work exists outside of economic systems…
I guess you can argue Grain just came across the materials and the cave and didn’t have to pay … where as now you need to buy stuff to actually do the painting… But also that stuff is way nicer and made by other humans.
Also, I bet if Grain was spending all of his time painting in the cave and not helping with the hunt, his fellow caveman would tell Grain he needs to do his part if he wants to eat.
But to answer the actual question, I don’t disagree that universal basic income would be great I just don’t think that the above arguement is a particularly great one for it. There are many better arguments that could be made and I don’t appreciate the false dichotomy that OP is putting out that because it just makes the whole idea seem hippie and stupid.
Also been aggressive with people who even marginally disagree with your opinion isn’t productive.
If their art doesn’t make enough money then it’s clearly not in enough demand.
Unless you burden the word ‘enough’ with far too much work in that sentence, then that implication doesn’t necessarily follow. It is possible for something to be in great demand by those without money to spend. Furthermore, it is possible for there to be issues with the logistics between the source and the demand (e.g. demand is very physically distributed, or temporally limited and/or sporadic).
Money is a very particular way of empowering and aggregating only some demand. It ties the power of demand to history and not moral or egalitarian considerations for one.
If their art doesn’t make enough money then it’s clearly not in enough demand. It sucks but thats how things work. Only a small number of artists can ever coexist at the same time.
deleted by creator
I mean, I’m sure the people who painted their hands in caves were doing all kinds of things. i.e. they had “jobs” even if those jobs were compensated for by something other than money.
deleted by creator
Yeah but like… That’s also true of capitalism. Grain can still paint from his desire to paint. Grain just goes and does a job instead of hunting because that’s how he and his fellow humans will be able to eat later or get other services that they want/need. If Grain is good enough, Grain doesn’t need to hunt at all because Grain trades art for food.
Hobbyist work exists outside of economic systems…
I guess you can argue Grain just came across the materials and the cave and didn’t have to pay … where as now you need to buy stuff to actually do the painting… But also that stuff is way nicer and made by other humans.
Also, I bet if Grain was spending all of his time painting in the cave and not helping with the hunt, his fellow caveman would tell Grain he needs to do his part if he wants to eat.
Interested to know - what political party do you support?
I have absolutely no idea what that means.
But to answer the actual question, I don’t disagree that universal basic income would be great I just don’t think that the above arguement is a particularly great one for it. There are many better arguments that could be made and I don’t appreciate the false dichotomy that OP is putting out that because it just makes the whole idea seem hippie and stupid.
Also been aggressive with people who even marginally disagree with your opinion isn’t productive.
I asked you a question out of curiosity. There was nothing aggressive in my comment. You’re being overly defensive.
Unless you burden the word ‘enough’ with far too much work in that sentence, then that implication doesn’t necessarily follow. It is possible for something to be in great demand by those without money to spend. Furthermore, it is possible for there to be issues with the logistics between the source and the demand (e.g. demand is very physically distributed, or temporally limited and/or sporadic).
Money is a very particular way of empowering and aggregating only some demand. It ties the power of demand to history and not moral or egalitarian considerations for one.