I see. Yeah, I didn't understand your position from your previous comment. I still don't think I quite understand the racial angle you're playing here, because I don't think you can demonstrably separate the systemic racism (eg, drug prohibition) from the economic impact of welfare.

But I think it's reasonable to point out that this is fuzzing the price signals of the market. Generally, I don't care for government meddling in the economy for this reason - I gather that you share this view.

In order to be satisfied that the impact will be negative, though, I find myself needing to understand whether the current price signals are optimized for the most important values.

Currently, in the crony capitalist system, the scenario you describe is rampant: "Handing somebody 'free' money takes from the productive sources that earned the money and distributes it to people...". I mean, isn't this basically all defense contracting and prisons? And most finance, insurance, and real-estate?

Meanwhile, things that are unquestionable worthwhile, like art and philosophy, aren't particularly economically viable.

So how do you line up price signals with genuine value? It's a hard question. Like what I gather is your position, I am far, far more inclined to trust a free market than government. But if I'm reading your comment correctly, you seem to have a bit of a fetish for "jobs" and capitalist ambition.

I don't care whatsoever is somebody has a job. I don't think most people want jobs, and I don't think most jobs need people. The vast majority of the population can find something better to do than a menial job, and I don't think it's reasonable to suggest that they need to be "uncomfortable enough to be ambitious" as a result.

If we are able to automate many (even most) jobs out of existence, don't we want people to thrive while doing something better with their time than pumping your gas or checking you out at the store?