and also the necessity of surplus and accidental (necessary) waste:

you need spare parts, and some machines are critical… think of data centres: they often have many spare hard drives on hand to deal with failure, which means that there are more than 100% of the required drives in use… some of the workloads running in that data centre service very important workloads - for example because it’s fresh in everyone’s mind - handing SNAP payments… so what, you redistribute those drives so that we are using all that we have? no we certainly don’t… we eat the inefficiency in the case of redundancy (same argument could apply many more times over when you also think about things like mirrored drives, backups, etc: all of that is under-utilised capacity and “waste”)

the same is true for supermarkets: food that is perishable can’t just be allocated where it’s needed. it exists in a place for a period of time, and you either run out a lot or you have some amount of spoilage… there’s a very hard to hit middle ground with overlapping sell by dates, and overall these days were incredibly good at hitting that already!

… and that’s not to mention the stock on the shelves which is the same thing as spare disk drives!

i guess that’s all distribution on the planet

we could certainly do better, but it’s so much more complex than the fact that these things exist so it must be possible to utilise them 100% efficiently

in Korea it was difficult to get aid to the villages on the front for obvious reasons. so some smartass thought, "if we can't bring the aid to the people, let's bring the people to the aid".

we shouldn't allow a simple problem like logistics get in the way of saving lives.

That logic is flawed too. The only thing preventing people in most areas to have access to such goods is the lack of industrialization, which is enforced by capitalist western nations through corruption, coups, or other less obvious methods like IMF loans and neocolonialism.

Countries that escaped this subjugation and industrialized, such as China or the USSR, essentially eliminated extreme poverty and multiplied life expectancy 2- and 3-fold in a matter of decades. If India, for example, had followed the Soviet example of rapid industrialization or the Chinese one, hundreds of millions of lives would have been saved from poverty.

We don't need to produce things in the developed countries and distribute them, we need to allow them to industrialize themselves and to produce their own shit without being exploited

It literally took 5 seconds to find it

they could have shared nothing at all, other people are often nice enough to search and post a link in the comments

Blocked :3

While I support a UBI, it would also require planning. A UBI without pegging it to the cost of living, without price controls, and without significant changes to our policy around labor would be mind-boggingly bad.

"If you give people a 1000 dollars landlords will just charge 1000 more" is bullshit for a few reasons, but with that large a change to the entire economy it would dramatically change the way our society functions. We need to ensure that we do not accidently step into a position in which we replace poverty wages and automation of work with poverty UBI and automation of work. If the work is being automated, we, the workers, those upon whose back this entire civilization has been built, deserve to see the fruits of that labor. We need drastic change to the way this works, and a UBI is a not-insignificant part of that, but it is only part of it.