It's also about knowing what facts need to be true for a BI to work. Then we know what facts we need to verify to determine if it's true, in contrast to all the meaningless verbiage in this thread.
Also, Scarmig's comment was quite valuable. It showed exactly what the driving effect is - that's precisely why you should do a back of the envelope calculation. And as all the non-quantitative comments show, it's also why any comments suggesting an effect but not doing such a calculation are worse than useless.
> Also, Scarmig's comment was quite valuable. It showed exactly what the driving effect is - that's precisely why you should do a back of the envelope calculation.
And the driving effect turned out to be a disputed premise that we already knew about from our directional, non-quantitative discussions. The quantitative side is just a meaningless overcomplication (the monte carlo part especially), especially when none of the parameters was empirically validated. You wouldn't value a company you were thinking about investing in that way.
A quantitative examination would be valuable if we agreed on the premises, or if we disagreed on conclusions but weren't sure where the disagreement on premises that was driving this was. Neither of these scenarios is the case for basic income. We know what the questions under dispute are; it's time for empirical experiments.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fermi_problem
It's also about knowing what facts need to be true for a BI to work. Then we know what facts we need to verify to determine if it's true, in contrast to all the meaningless verbiage in this thread.
Also, Scarmig's comment was quite valuable. It showed exactly what the driving effect is - that's precisely why you should do a back of the envelope calculation. And as all the non-quantitative comments show, it's also why any comments suggesting an effect but not doing such a calculation are worse than useless.