Itâ(TM)s already too late. In my opinion, artificial intelligence will significantly replace not only graphic designers, composers, and voice actors for computer games, but eventually even the actors in big movies. The art of acting as we know it will be reserved either for art films or for very high-budget films. At the end of the day, whatâ(TM)s cheaper will prevail. AI-generated actors can be more beautiful, wonâ(TM)t age, wonâ(TM)t have unions, wonâ(TM)t have problems shooting sequels, will always be available, no need to coordinate their schedules with other films, and will happily lend their faces to marketing campaigns or video games. The possibilities are significantly broader. Just as buying newspapers is history today, live actors will also become a thing of the past.

In Slovakia (somewhere in Europe), I've 600/30 Mbps + wifi modem rental for 18$ month, no caps. This put your price hike in perspective - they are ripping you off.

Actually need for change drives technological progress. There are now more efficient solar panels, more advanced car engines, light bulbs consume 10% of previous power consumption, etc.

Industry is more advanced, so this is proof that development and cutting emissions can be done simultaneously.

In 1990, the EU emitted 100 million tons
In 2020, the EU emitted 76 million tons

In other words: EU Greenhouse Gas Emissions Down 24% Since 1990

Because: 76 is 24% down from 100. Good work, EU.

Two points to this scenario: â if everyone in UK will be infected, it will result in 3 500 000 deaths [1]. Also some people will be left with nasty scars on lungs [2], which will limit them for life. â more people infected means, there will be greater chance of virus mutation. This has already happened at least once [3], so more infected people means more mutations. Because of this it is important to reduce numbers of infected people. _____ [1] https://bit.ly/39IuTSj [2] https://bit.ly/33EfCjh [3] https://www.newscientist.com/a...

They are right about this. In 20 years TV will be like printed news today.

It already has this feature, just press "E" while on playback.

But Sue doesn't have an effective monopoly, she still has competitors like Mary who are also trying to sell to Frank and George and will undercut her if she tries to gouge.
Yes. And Mary can do that even now, without UBI. This is definitely not an argument for UBI.

Thank you for your response Issildur03.

You seem to be reiterating that UBI will increase prices on common goods. I agree with that, but don't see the problem with it: assuming healthy competition (or regulation of allowed monopolies), this has to be accompanied with a higher sales volume
No. Higher price of output (goods/service) will be caused by higher price of the input. People, creating values, will have to earn extra money, because they have to earn also for UBI payment.

...being incorrectly over-valued...
Not all wealthy people are rich incorrectly. Actually you need to take money from people, who are rich because of their work. Let's assume Paris Hilton doesn't produce anything. You can take from her once, to pay X people $1000 UBI. But next month - you cannot take from her, because she didn't produce anything. So for monthly UBI - you must take from people, who do a lot.

So UBI is based on money from creators of values. As they work the same, but earns less, they will compensate with higher prices to cover their loss. And they can ask higher price, because all people have more money because of UBI.

No, I'm not. To super-simplify: I'm proposing robot shoe factories...
This doesn't relate to the UBI.

This is another fallacy, because we don't need unlimited supplies
As we do not have unlimited resources, we need to put priority on resources we have, how to distribute them to produce goods/services. Weight of these needs is done by pricing them.

one can live comfortably without ever going to one of his restaurants
Some people would like to go there. Probably more people, than he can serve. And here comes price - how much I value my money, which represent my work? How much I'm willing to pay? How much Gordon requires to offer his service? Money is the weight on limited resources.

And taking money and giving them for free will not make services/goods more affordable, it will just raise the price bar, as the amount of limited resources remains the same

Value is always relative. Bottle of water may have value $1-2 for you. On the other hand, someone thirsty in the desert would pay $100 for it.

About Carly Fiorina - they paid for what they hoped. Their judgement was wrong, but it was their money and their responsibility to use them wisely. At the beginning, they saw big value in hiring her. And now we know the value of their mistake.

Sue is rich not because she got $10k, decided that was enough and stopped. She's rich because she was already charging Frank and George the highest prices she could.
Exactly my point. Sue was charging Frank and George highest prices she could. Now she can charge them more, because they have more money.

You confuse the owners of capital with the creators of value
Not all wealthy people do create value, but - you can take only from creators of value. So you will be taking from them. So they will have deficiency.

There is no need of "creators" to ensure most of the needs of regular people
Actually you are proposing to take from creators. So even you need them for your theory.

The "circle" exists only if the supply is limited
Supply is always limited. There isn't one thing on Earth, that isn't limited. There is only one Gordon Ramsay. There is only limited people willing to do farming. There will be only limited amount of apples this year. And so on.

Money is the value we are giving to things/service. And by willing to pay or not to pay price for something, we are giving it a priority/value.

Sue works as before, but she gets less. To achieve previous standard, she asks more (higher prices) from Frank and George. She can do that, because both of them can afford to pay higher prices, as they both have higher income. Later the system will find new equilibrium like OLD_PRICES + $1000.

Thank you very much for your response. First of all, your point of view contradicts the idea of the original article. I don't mind, as I disagree with it anyway, just pointing it out.

About your response. Money represents value - work, goods, goodwill, etc. Considering your redistribution, you are saying to take money from those, who create value and spread them evenly. So there will be a deficit on the side of creators of value. To eliminate this deficiency, creators will have to earn more money. To earn more money, they will have to raise the prices. Raised prices means that general public will have nominally more money, but can afford less-per-dollar. And the circle is closed.

That's why UBI system will not work.