> Because it seems to be economically the right thing to do^H^H^H^H^H optimal for a few billionaires.
FTFY.
...though even the billionaires may regret it if the peasants wind up starving by the billions. Species don't do well with tiny populations.
And before anyone says "UBI," give me a coherent explanation of:
* who is going to fund UBI to the tune of fifty trillion dollars
* why we're so confident they'll do that
* why there are currently so many people starving and homeless in SF if if any tech billionaire feels the need to spend their money providing for other humans
Maximizing shareholder value seems like a weird thing to hold as a moral imperative.
[dead]
> Because it seems to be economically the right thing to do^H^H^H^H^H optimal for a few billionaires.
FTFY.
...though even the billionaires may regret it if the peasants wind up starving by the billions. Species don't do well with tiny populations.
And before anyone says "UBI," give me a coherent explanation of:
* who is going to fund UBI to the tune of fifty trillion dollars * why we're so confident they'll do that * why there are currently so many people starving and homeless in SF if if any tech billionaire feels the need to spend their money providing for other humans