The US subsidizing the book market would be an incredible waste of my taxes, given that the majority of published works are fiction, political drivel, and non-fiction memoirs that provide near-zero value to "humanity" that the root poster is clutching pearls about.

The IA's collection of books they had to remove almost certainly has the same composition, and therefore the same loss in value (roughly zero) after being made inaccessible.

Accusations of sexism, especially false ones, are categorically inappropriate for HN. Please never do this again.

Sexist? That was not my intention. I meant misantripic in the sense of:

> 2: marked by a hatred or contempt for humankind The moral corruption he saw around him made him misanthropic.

Also I didn't mean the commenter was misanthropic, but that the view they held would fit a misanthropic authors novel as part of their satire.

Maybe you thought I wrote "misogynistic"?

You're right, I confused "misanthropic" and "misogynistic".

That turns out to not make your comment any less incorrect or manipulative, though. Requiring people to pay for the stuff they consume isn't even remotely misanthropic.

Didn't mean that either. I meant that saying the entire book industry is a waste not worth tax money, implying other uses of taxes like military spending is more valuable, is something that could have been said by a fictional character conjured by a person who thinks lowly of humankind.

Give people a book coupon? Then they can chose what they think important?

There's no need.

Memoirs, political books, fiction - no need for the taxpayer to subsidize, people can buy themselves.

Actually useful technical material: already available for free on the internet.

Poor people are not dying on the streets because they can't read the autobiography of the latest president. Tax dollars going to that instead of climate change or cancer research or something similar is incredibly immoral.

1. Not a fan of privation fallacy

2. Your view on books and by extension, long term education is well, short term. A classic issue used to defund libraries. You don't give proper resources and knowledge to get the homeless today off thr street. It's to ensure much less of the next generation isn't also on the street.

There were a vast number of technical books on the internet archive, that was mostly what I used it for. They’re not easily accessible elsewhere, maybe pirated from random torrent sites but they’re not discoverable or easily searched.

Oh, yes. Great idea. https://www.dissentmagazine.org/online_articles/citizen-coup...

This is true of many, many careers: if you take that career in isolation, you could fund just the people in that career at their current salaries, for a tiny fraction of GDP. That doesn't scale to the entire populace, and there's no good justification for subsidizing this group and not others.

UBI, on the other hand, is entirely feasible, not least of which because it ditches the completely infeasible "at their current salary" in favor of "enough to live, not enough that most people won't want more". And you'd create substantial growth via startups and other creative endeavors. UBI gives everyone the option to try experiments that might not pay off right away.

A reason for subsiding this group but not others is that our economic system is so bad at utilizing the potential of their work.

It's literally free to distribute all books/newspapers/magazines to all people in the world. Why aren't we?

It's common to have state intervention in markets that are unable to utilize resources efficiently on their own.

About UBI, sure! The point of my comment was that this isn't a "fanciful overhaul of society" but a real possibility that could be implemented given some though and political will. UBI also fits that category, but is probably a bit more expensive and disruptive than financing authors.

I'm glad that the wages for teachers come from the government. Imagine a world with only private schools.

Same with books. Easy access to books was a huge contributor to the industrial revolution and especially Germany profited from weak copyright laws. Would you rather insist on your rights for a few coins more - or transform an entire generation?

How would you determine if someone qualifies as an author deserving full salary? Can I become an author by simply meeting a word count quota? What prevents a large portion of the population from quitting their jobs and becoming authors instead?

You could have some kind of peer review process, or base it on popularity, or some other system.

I'm not saying it's a solved question, I'm just saying it wouldn't be that expensive relative to other public expenditure.

My understanding is that most bands make more on merch than the actual distribution of their music, because fans always want more and are willing to pay them directly to encourage more works.

There has to be a better way than the model we have now where everything is so tightly controlled.