Sounds like a good thing in my book if the alternative would be higher unemployment and having no road at all.

And yes, in many cases, that would be the alternative. Even the US lacks infrastructure spending despite being one of the richest countries in the world.

Of course, in an ideal world, you'd build a proper solid road once, and afterwards pay people to do other kinds of work that are higher on the hierarchy of needs. But you can't just blindly criticize something for looking inefficient without properly considering the alternatives.

Science isn't generated in a vacuum, and in any case, science alone doesn't generate goods/services. I strongly recommend you look at the evidence presented on the causes of global poverty reduction:

https://www.ted.com/talks/paul_romer

http://www.economist.com/news/leaders/21578665-nearly-1-bill...

http://www.csmonitor.com/World/2016/0207/Progress-in-the-glo...

Did you read the articles I linked? What was your takaway from them?

Obviously after implementing BI the economy may not adhere to previous economic models since youre changing part of it.

What scientific studies would you reccomend? I dont consider ted talks to be a rigorous science community and I dont think its conjecture that products are designed for the people who will ultimately pay for them.

>Economists have looked at this and concluded that the spread of market institutions like private property rights has accelerated poverty reduction, because of the effect it has on capital allocation and incentives.

This isn't specifically about BI. My point is that you're wrong to claim economic systems don't matter. You're applying very little critical thinking and intellectual integrity to this debate. What do you think you'll accomplish by lying to others and yourself?

>You linked christian science monitor and an economist fluff peice fta: "take a bow capitalism," yea - quality, unbiased, non-ideological sources here. /s

Both are considered highly credible media sources. Do you think they are lying when they state that the spread of market institutions is responsible for the largest reduction in poverty in world history?

As for the TED talk, are you aware of who Paul Romer is? Do you know why he is considered credible? Did you watch the talk he gave, and the explanations he provided for why poverty has declined in various countries?

I didn't and won't watch your video source. I dont think cs and economist are lying just that one has christian in the name which says somthing about their preexisting political bias and I'm not lying to anyone, the economist article was definitely a fluff peice which even the most highly credible media institutions can produce.

Putting your head in the sand and being optimistic is not going to make the potential problems of forcible redistribution go away.

When the evidence suggests that a particular idea is a bad one, even if that idea seemed wonderful at first, a d even if that idea is wildly popular, it has to be discarded, for the sake of society.

The only people who advance this peculiar definition are members of the American left, presumably as a way to define themselves out of being "socialist"!

French Wikipedia has a better definition: the elimination of inequality and social classes.

> The word "socialism" covers a very diverse set of currents of thought and political movements, whose common purpose is to seek social and economic justice. The original goal of socialism is to achieve the social equality, or at least a reduction of inequalities and, particularly for Marxists, to establish a society without social classes.

I guess you could say "socialism" is a label and not a description.

"...said Marx, what we observe historically is that only one class of persons has always owned or monopolized the means of production throughout history. This condition of ownership over the means of production is the single most fundamental fact of the materialistic theory of history since it is this that leads to the division of society into economic classes." [Morrison, Marx, Durkheim, Weber: Formations of Modern Social Thought, p. 44, paraphrasing Marx, The Germany Ideology, pp. 8-13.]

"...it was seen that all past history, with the exception of its primitive stages, was the history of class struggles; that these social classes warring with each other are always the products of the relations of production and exchange -- in a word, of the economic relations of their epoch; that therefore the economic structure of society always forms the real basis, from which, in the last analysis, the whole superstructure of legal and political institutions as well as of the religious, philosophical, and other ideas of a given historical period is to be explained." [Engels, Socialism: Utopian and Scientific, p. 72.]

"The proletariat seizes state power and to begin with transforms the means of production into state property. But it thus puts an end to itself as proletariat, it thus puts an end to all class differences and class antagonisms and thus also to the state as state." [Engels, Socialism: Utopian and Scientific, p. 93.]

tl;dr--In the analysis of Marx and Engels, ownership of the means of production is what divides economic classes; economic relations are the basis upon which are founded all social and political relations in society; in the struggle between those who own the means of production and those who do not, it is by the proletariat seizing the means of production that class differences are eliminated in society.

So "ownership of means of production" is simply the next step, an answer to an inevitable question that would arise from French Wikipedia's definition.